Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale—Took the oath.

Personal Statement: The Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I should like to take this first opportunity to put the record straight. In an oral Answer to a supplementary Question on 8th November I said that NMEC is not insolvent; that at all stages it traded entirely solvently and paid all its creditors. In fact, there was a period, as PricewaterhouseCoopers advised the company in the summer of 2000, when there was a need for a further Millennium Commission grant. Until the Millennium Commission confirmed the grant, there was a technical insolvency. Because the Millennium Commission made the further grant available on 5th September 2000, the insolvency never crystallised and all creditors have been paid.
	The Answer I gave on Thursday was therefore unintentionally incorrect because it did not refer to that period. I apologise for the mistake, which is entirely my responsibility.

Gulf War Veterans: Health Study

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish the findings of the medical study of the health effects of the multiple immunisation programme adopted by the Ministry of Defence to protect servicemen and women deployed in the Gulf War.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence Interactions Research programme is studying whether the combination of vaccines used to protect UK personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects. As my noble friend Lady Symons announced in this House on 15th January, the programme is due to complete in 2003. The findings will be published in scientific literature as soon as possible thereafter.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who understands, I know, the deep disquiet of Gulf veterans that they will not now know until the year after next, 12 years on, whether it was safe in 1991 to give them up to 14 inoculations in quick succession. Is the medical study also considering the effects of issuing NAPS tablets; exposure to organophosphates, massive oil-smoke pollution and other toxic substances; and the constant stress imposed by Iraq's deployment of chemical and biological weapons? Without at least an interim report, how can any lessons learned from the study be fully applied in protecting our troops now on active service in Afghanistan and others, possibly including reservists, who may have to join them?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I understand the importance of my noble friend's Question, and his diligence and tireless energy on this subject in association with the Royal British Legion over a considerable period of time. He asked specifically about NAPS, the nerve agent pre-treatment sets. Yes, the interaction study includes work on whether the combination of NAPS and vaccines used to protect UK personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects.
	My noble friend asked about lessons to be learned from the Gulf conflict in relation to the present conflict. We have taken steps to ensure that service personnel are kept up to date with routine vaccinations. Since the Gulf War, we have made improvements in the areas of medical record-keeping and in keeping up to date with the medical precautions which will need to be taken for those areas of the world where it is judged that our forces are likely to operate.
	I should stress—I am sure your Lordships would expect me to do so—that the paramount concern of everyone involved in this research and consideration is to ensure that the best possible protection and support are given to those who risk their lives in defence of our freedom. Finally, my noble friend talked about the possibility of interim findings. As he rightly says, 2003 is longer than anyone would have wished to wait for the results. Perhaps I may refer him to the results published earlier this year in the Journal of Applied Toxicology. Other interim findings will be made public as and when they are known.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government, at the same time, be publishing their own views and comments, both on this study and on future programmes of this kind where our forces are serving abroad in unfamiliar conditions?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the medical research is constantly ongoing and so far has been funded by the Ministry of Defence to the tune of £4.7 million. A further £1.5 million is anticipated. As has been repeatedly stated but needs to be restated, the basis of that research has been conducted with a view to ensuring the widest possible openness, frankness and dissemination of any results as and when they are discovered. As I am sure everyone will agree, it is important to ensure that the information is accurate. That is why the research has perhaps sometimes taken somewhat longer than we would have wished.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that every one of us in this House, and probably in the country, accepts that it is the duty and intention of the Government to protect our forces when they go into a battlefield. However, does he also accept that when things apparently go wrong—they have very apparently gone wrong in this case—we should do something about it? I do not remember who it was who said that science is merely the assembling of facts which are common sense. Would it not be a good idea to apply common sense now and give the Gulf veterans the treatment they deserve? In other words, they should be recognised as being sick due to their service in the Gulf and should receive treatment accordingly?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know that the noble Countess has been heavily involved in the issue and I am sure she will acknowledge that it is extremely complex, as is the evidence in respect of a number of issues that have been raised. We should keep in mind the statement made by the Government in 1997 declaring that three principles will govern all that we do: first, that all Gulf War veterans will have prompt access to medical advice from the Gulf War veterans' medical assessment programme; secondly, that there will be appropriate research into Gulf War veterans' illnesses and the factors which might have a bearing on those; and, thirdly and finally, as I have already said but make no apology for repeating, that the Ministry of Defence will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to the issue.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how does one deal with an issue in respect of which one cannot have a control group? Presumably no government would dare to immunise only half of their forces, but the only real way of making an assessment would be to keep one group unimmunised. How does any government deal with such a dilemma?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, comparisons have been made between the forces which were deployed in the Gulf and those which were not. A number of studies have been made on that basis. However, nothing I say should detract from a recognition of the complexity of the issue or from the willingness and openness of the Ministry of Defence and the Medical Research Council to consider any future proposals which might present important information that could be the basis for research. We are looking forward as well as back.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the problem was that at one time the Ministry of Defence ran out of anti-anthrax vaccine. Can the Minister assure the House that the Ministry owns enough vaccine to cover all foreseeable circumstances?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's long-standing interest in the matter. For obvious reasons, and throughout much of this year and more recently, much concern has been expressed about anthrax. Independent medical advice has confirmed that anthrax immunisation offers safe and effective additional protection and it is the duty of the department to ensure that adequate supplies of the vaccine are available.

Statue of Sir Walter Raleigh

Baroness Trumpington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current situation with regard to the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh; and when the statue will be moved to its final destination.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the statue has been removed from Raleigh Green in Whitehall for cleaning before it is moved to the grounds of the former Royal Naval College at Greenwich. The site at Greenwich has now been prepared and the statue should be in its new home by the end of the year.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it would probably be churlish of me to say, "And about time, too!", so I shall not say it. Am I right in believing that it was mooted that a statue of a woman should replace that of tiny Sir Walter? Has that idea been abandoned? If not, I can think of several good subjects.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would like to suggest some alternatives and find some sponsors, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be delighted to consider anything she proposes. However, I want to congratulate the noble Baroness on all the work she has done to ensure that Sir Walter Raleigh is moved to an appropriate place. I also want to suggest that there might be a small unveiling ceremony at which the noble Baroness might like to appear as Queen Elizabeth. I shall ask my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who has answered her Questions in the past, to appear as Sir Walter Raleigh with his cloak for her to step on.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my predecessor as Speaker and I did battle with government bureaucracy for 15 years in order to have the statue moved from Whitehall to an appropriate spot outside St Margaret's Church at Westminster? We were united in that desire by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster and by those who take care of the fabric of the two churches but the proposal was objected to by Westminster City Council. Is the noble Baroness further aware that the statue would have been most appropriately placed outside St Margaret's Church because it would have been seen daily by the hundreds of people who queue there to go into Westminster Abbey—plus the fact that the old chap's bones are actually underneath St Margaret's Church? Can the Minister tell me whether there are any other projects of important historic connection around Westminster Abbey which Westminster City Council is seeking to veto?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, for the interest she has taken in the issue. I was aware that for a variety of reasons Westminster City Council decided not to grant planning permission for the statue to be placed on the green outside St Margaret's Church. I am not aware of any other proposals for statues to be placed on that spot, but, again, if there are any such proposals I should be particularly interested in them. However, I must add that it will be for Westminster City Council and not the Government to decide whether it is an appropriate place.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the two noble Baronesses that have spoken so far have not declared their interest? Both of them are indebted to Sir Walter for bringing in tobacco, to which they are both addicted.

Baroness Blackstone: Well, my Lords, I gather that the noble Baroness has given up. That must perhaps be a matter of disappointment for Sir Walter. He may indeed be turning in his grave.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the last time that this subject came up it was said that the reason his statue was so small was because tobacco had stunted his growth. Alas, it never stunted mine.

Public Services

Viscount Goschen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What role they envisage for the private sector in enhancing the delivery of public services.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government are determined to improve the delivery of public services. In the right circumstances, involving the private sector brings innovation and new management expertise to the delivery of good quality public services. Furthermore, one of our principles of reform is to create more choice for customers of public services with the option, if provision falls below acceptable standards, to have alternative services whether from other public service providers, from the private sector or indeed from the non-profit making voluntary sector.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile the ambitions given in his Answer to enhance the use of the private sector with the reality of the critically damaged reputation that the Government now have with it, following their action to force one of their largest private sector partners—Railtrack—out of business and to bypass the statutory regulator entirely? Is not the inevitable consequence of this action that all future PPP projects will be more difficult to execute and will command a higher regulatory risk premium, making them much worse value for the taxpayer?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, had to take decisive action in the interests of the travelling public. That was needed because the privatised system bequeathed by the Conservatives proved in the end to be unable to function efficiently and cost-effectively. As Stephen Byers has said, it was a difficult decision, but one that was needed to deliver a better rail system. I therefore see no reason why Railtrack should have any impact on other proposals for the modernisation of our infrastructure. I believe that financial backers are sophisticated enough to see the singularity of the situation that we faced on the railways.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that there is a role for private and public initiatives to help in the regeneration of deprived areas of our country? I am currently investigating the disturbances earlier in the year in Burnley. In particular, perhaps my noble friend could say whether or not he feels that the PPIs could help in the clearance of some of the dreadful housing that I have witnessed over the last couple of months, houses that we should all be ashamed of. Help is desperately needed to clear these dreadful hovels.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I know that the local government sector has been particularly active with regard to clearing PFIs and PPPs. Since 1997, the capital value of PPPs has leapt to £16.5 billion. There are now almost 400 PPP projects of different types in various stages of procurement. That will take us up to a total of over £30 billion, which will be a key contribution to the regeneration of the country, and particularly the kind of areas that my noble friend indicates.

Lord Newby: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he is confident that the part-privatisation of the London Underground will go ahead in the light of the Railtrack fiasco, or whether the Government will now accept the case for keeping the Tube in the public sector?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, let me stress that the ownership of the Tube stays in the public sector. It will continue to be responsible for running the railway. The operation of the track, the signals, trains and stations will remain in public hands. Let me repeat that I see no reason why the Railtrack situation should have any impact on our proposals for the modernisation of London Underground. Financial backers are sophisticated enough to see that the kind of comparisons that the Opposition try to draw are misplaced.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is it not a matter of grave concern that the Government can see "no reason"—to use the Minister's words—why the decision about Railtrack should make it more difficult to raise private finance when the overwhelming view of the financial markets is that it will make a considerable difference?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we believed that Railtrack was a company that was facing financial meltdown. In April, I was party to a decision which advanced £1.5 billion to that company. But in July, after the election, I was interested to read that the company itself felt that the £1.5 billion was not enough to keep it going as a going concern. In the Government's view they were being asked for a blank cheque for no definite return. Any advisers in the financial sector in the City would see that to sign such a blank cheque would be bad business.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that the Government publish a paper indicating how calculations are made as to value for money in the case of a PPP as compared with financing the projects through the Treasury?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, a great deal of work has been done in this area. There is more in progress. I recall from memory of my time there, that there is a promise that the work being done on the public sector comparator for the London Tube will be published in time. If I am wrong about that I shall of course write and let my noble friend know.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the Minister accept that whatever the Government's rationalisation of the Railtrack series of events last month, the whole of the financial market was deeply shocked by what they did. For example, Digby Jones, the director-general of the CBI, has said that the Government will have to work hard to restore the faith of the capital markets. My question to the noble Lord is: do the Government intend to do anything to restore the faith of the capital markets?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we served the capital market well in April by stating plainly that we would stand behind the rail network but that we would not stand behind particular companies or their shareholders. That was acknowledged by Steve Marshall of Railtrack in an interview to the Financial Times of 11th April. He said:
	"Yes, they [the Government] would allow us to go bust. It's quite clearly item one on the agreement with the Government. While the Government stands behind the industry, they don't stand behind any particular company, of course they don't".

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree with me that in the contribution that the private sector has made to finance the railways, the greatest sufferers have not been the people that the Opposition are bleating about but the hard-pressed commuters of this country, the hard-pressed travellers who had what was previously a good railway system destroyed before their very eyes?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I understand the indignation of the noble Lord and indeed of many members of the travelling public. When I was at the Ministry of Transport we tried to be as understanding and supportive to Railtrack as was possible in the circumstances. The circumstances of July, however, made a continuance of that policy impossible.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, can the Minister shed any light on the mystery of why the public services appear to most people to be in a worse state now than they were when the Government changed power? Is it because, in the words of one Downing Street official:
	"We are running a Soviet-style centralised system and that's never going to work"?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Not at all, my Lords. What we are attempting to do is to sort out 18 years of dereliction and under-funding that we inherited. We are doing that very effectively in the sense that public sector investment—net of depreciation—will increase from £6.3 billion last year to £18.7 billion in the year 2003-04.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the long-suffering travellers on London Underground want the service to be improved and do not care where the money comes from as long as it is carried out quickly?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I remind noble Lords that one of the guiding principles of this undogmatic Government is to do what works.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the public services have a major duty to ensure the safety of British airports? Is he further aware that very recently an aircraft has crashed close to JFK Airport in New York and a number of buildings in the area of Queens are on fire? If that is the result of a ground-to-air missile—nobody knows at this stage—will the noble Lord ensure that British airports are monitored very carefully by the military to ensure that an attack of that kind cannot happen here?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that the news that has just arrived is received with great sadness. I am no longer at the Ministry of Transport, but I can assure the noble Lord that the reputation of British aviation for its security measures was very high indeed, and I am sure that that will be sustained.

Regional Assemblies: Public Support

Baroness Hanham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in view of the low turnout and votes for elected mayors in the recent referendums, they propose to test public opinion on the demand for regional assemblies.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are committed to testing public opinion through referendums before setting up elected regional assemblies. No region will have an assembly unless it votes for one.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the fact that the average turnout for the election of mayors was just 28 per cent, and in several cases as low as 10 per cent, and that the proposition for an elected mayor was successful in only a few local authorities, does the Minister believe that these experiments in local democracy are justified and that they will be any more successful or popular if extended to referendums on the public's reaction to regional assemblies?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the experiments in other forms of local democracy are justified. In certain cases the local leadership provided by a mayor can be of great importance. I do not believe anyone doubts that the leadership provided by Mayor Giuliani in New York has impressed the whole world. As to elected regional assemblies, we have made it clear that there will not be such bodies unless there is support for them in referendums beforehand. We need to identify what the threshold should be before such a referendum takes place. There are indications from public opinion that significant areas of the country would value an elected regional assembly. There have been low turnouts in quite a number of local government elections recently, as the noble Baroness is aware. I do not believe that she would suggest that that means we get rid of local government—far from it. We must try to inject greater interest in it.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister's comment on local government. Is he aware that last week the Minister for Local Government, when commenting on low turnout, suggested that there should be mechanical measures, such as electronic voting, to encourage a higher turnout? Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that this is not the limit of the Government's ambition? Does he agree that to encourage a higher turnout electors need to believe that they have a real say in what government will do at any level and that they will be electing politicians whom they can trust?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is most certainly a place for making it easier for people to vote. As my right honourable friend in another place said, the form of voting is exactly that which would have confronted Gladstone when he sought to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to make voting easier and more accessible, but that should not be the end of it. We should look at ways of developing government that is more representative and closer to the people—mayors are one example—and let the people decide in relation to that, but we must also root local government in its role as local leaders.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that when the Government come to consider the desirability of elected assemblies they remember the wisdom of John Major's observation that if the answer to the question is more politicians one is asking the wrong question?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, surely that is a matter for the regions to decide. For example, the North East or the North West can decide whether it wants a regional assembly which brings certain responsibilities closer to the people.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that there is a danger of electoral fatigue with people much keener on having elections and referendums than voting in them? Does he agree, therefore, that in these areas there is a case for supplementing referendums with other forms of test, such as citizens' juries, properly conducted opinion polls, and so on?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is a role for those in relation to the development of policy. However, as to whether there should be an elected regional assembly, or what form of local government should apply in a particular area, I do not believe that there is any alternative to referendums.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the additional expenditure on a regional assembly and its likely cost to the average council tax payer? Can the noble and learned Lord also say whether he believes there is a need for both district and county councils following regional assemblies, and, if not, which one he would scrap?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the precise estimate of cost in relation to expenditure on a regional assembly. I shall write to the noble Viscount. As to whether there should be two-tier authorities, in some cases it is not right that there should be. That is something which needs to be looked at particularly in the context of where there is a regional assembly. If one has a regional assembly and two other tiers, that looks to be too many. As to which is the right one to remove, it is not for me to say at this stage.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister state the lowest percentage that would be acceptable and considered a fair test in a referendum?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot say what the figure would be, but it is right that people should be given the opportunity to vote. If there is a close vote and a low turnout, that is something that the Government must consider at a particular time. We must remember that turnout is going down at every level—in general elections, local elections and referendums—and simply to point out that fact is not an adequate response. We need to think of ways to ensure that more people feel engaged in the political process.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that whatever new system the Government may envisage to encourage voters to vote will not involve the use of pregnant chads?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can give an assurance that pregnant chads are not at the forefront of our plans.

Export Control Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Welfare of Ducks Bill [HL]

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the health and welfare of ducks kept for the production of meat or eggs or for breeding. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Homelessness Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	As many noble Lords will no doubt know, the Homelessness Bill was the first Bill to be introduced in another place in the current Session—a sign of the importance that the Government attach to its provisions.
	The Government are committed to strengthening the existing safety net that local housing authorities provide to those who have lost their home or are at risk of becoming homeless. Homelessness often occurs in the wake of other upheavals in people's lives—for instance, the breakdown of a relationship, or health problems—and hits already vulnerable people harder still. The law already requires housing authorities to help those who find themselves homeless through no fault of their own. The provisions of the Bill will encourage authorities to assess their performance and see how they can target their assistance more effectively.
	The Homelessness Bill is therefore intended to secure the prevention of homelessness as well as its relief. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill will require local housing authorities to undertake a comprehensive review of homelessness in their district. This is not simply a head-counting exercise to determine the number of cases in the district and likely future levels of homelessness. The reviews will also require a good, hard look at what is already being done—not only in the public sector but also in the private and voluntary sectors—to prevent homelessness and to ensure that accommodation and appropriate support are available for those who are homeless; and to help people who need support to avoid becoming homeless.
	Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill will require each housing authority to draw up a strategy for preventing homelessness in its area and ensuring that adequate resources are available to help those who become homeless on the basis of the evidence gathered in its review. These strategies should embrace not only local authorities' relevant housing and social services functions, but also—with their agreement—the activities of other bodies, including voluntary organisations, that are working in the area to prevent homelessness or assist homeless people. The Bill encourages a multi-agency approach to tackling homelessness as part of these strategies. To ensure that they continue accurately to reflect the situation in each authority's area, strategies will have to be reviewed at least every five years.
	The Bill also modifies the existing homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 to strengthen the protection available for homeless people. The provisions of the Bill will also offer greater protection to those who are unintentionally homeless but do not have a priority need. Housing authorities will be under a clearer duty to provide advice and assistance in such cases, and will have a new power under Clause 5 which will enable them to secure suitable accommodation for this client group, where they have sufficient resources available.
	Clause 6 will ensure that all applicants who are unintentionally homeless and have a priority need must be secured suitable accommodation for as long as necessary until a settled home becomes available for them. It will also remove the current limit of two years on the main duty of housing authorities to secure suitable accommodation for homeless people in priority need.
	Authorities are currently prevented from using their own accommodation to provide temporary housing for homeless people for more than two years in three. That restriction can be very unhelpful, putting an extra obstacle in authorities' way as they seek to find short-term accommodation for people whom they are obliged by law to accommodate. The relevant section of the Housing Act 1996, Section 207, is therefore repealed in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which will give authorities greater flexibility to meet homeless people's short-term housing needs.
	Clause 8 of the Bill will ensure that homeless applicants have the right to ask the housing authority to review the suitability of any accommodation they are offered without having to risk being made homeless again if the authority upholds its initial decision. That will help to ensure that all applicants are offered settled accommodation which is suitable for them.
	At present, if other accommodation is available locally in the private sector, authorities can do no more than provide advice and assistance to those who approach them for help. Clause 9 of the Bill will remove this restriction on authorities.
	Clause 10 of the Bill will clarify the obligations of local housing authorities towards people who have suffered violence or have been threatened with it. It will provide that applicants who would be at risk of any form of violence if they remained in their current home must be treated as homeless. Moreover, authorities will not be able to refer applicants to an authority in another area if they would be at risk of further violence there.
	Under Clause 11 of the Bill, applicants will also have improved rights of appeal to the county court where they are dissatisfied with the local authority's homelessness decision. The court will be able to extend the 21-day period during which such applications can be made if there is a good reason to do so. Furthermore, applicants will have a new right to appeal to the county court if they are dissatisfied with a decision by the authority not to continue to accommodate them pending an appeal to the county court on the substantive homelessness decision. At present, local authority decisions not to accommodate can be considered only in the High Court by judicial review. The new powers will obviate the need for two different courts—the county court considering the appeal on the substantive homelessness decision and the High Court looking at the decision not to accommodate—to be involved in the same homelessness case at the same time.
	Perhaps I may break from outlining the detail of the Bill to refer to a relevant point. We have also consulted on proposals to make an order under the Housing Act 1996 to extend the categories of homeless households who have a priority need for suitable short-term accommodation. The categories currently include families with dependent children, households where someone is pregnant, and households where someone is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental or physical disability or some other special reason.
	We propose to extend the definition of priority need to cover 16 and 17 year-olds, people who are vulnerable as a result of being forced from their homes by violence, young people aged 18 to 21 who have previously been in care, and people who are vulnerable as a result of having spent time in local authority care, the Armed Forces or prison. I should note that the Government are firmly of the view that 16 and 17 year-olds belong, wherever possible, with their families, but in cases where a young person's relationship with that family has irrevocably broken down, they must be found suitable accommodation and support. The order will ensure this.
	The order will also provide that people who are vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence must be treated as having a priority need for accommodation. This proposal has been portrayed by some as giving ex-prisoners priority for housing over families. Let me make it absolutely clear that the order will do nothing of the kind. Being treated as having a priority need for accommodation under the homelessness legislation does not give anyone priority for the allocation of long-term social housing. The process of allocating long-term social tenancies is quite separate from the operation of the homelessness safety net.
	Perhaps I may also remind noble Lords that ex-offenders without appropriate accommodation are twice as likely to reoffend as those who have settled housing. In the long run, it is many times more cost-effective to assist ex-offenders to go straight, in order to be able to work and to contribute to society.
	I shall be frank. The provisions of the Bill and the priority needs order are intended to provide a safety net which is broad enough and strong enough to ensure that all those who are most vulnerable within our society will be provided with accommodation if they become homeless through no fault of their own. The result of that will doubtless mean that even more people will be recorded as statutorily homeless. But we must re-evaluate what the homelessness figures mean. These are people who are being helped; they are no longer homeless. Where the system currently fails is in the number of homeless people who are not covered by the current legislation and are therefore invisible in the statistics. Bringing their circumstances to light is the first step in securing settled housing for them, and we make no apology for doing so.
	The Government's immediate priority must be to ensure that such people have somewhere suitable to live in the short-term. We need to work towards preventing homelessness occurring in the first place and ensure that sufficient accommodation is available so that those for whom homelessness cannot be avoided do not have to spend long periods in unsatisfactory temporary accommodation. We are aware of the plight of families placed, for want of a better option, in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation by authorities. We have set up the Bed and Breakfast Unit to work with authorities and other stakeholders to address the problem. The unit aims to reduce within two years the use in England of such accommodation, particularly in relation to families with children.
	The next priority is to improve the quality of existing homes and to increase the supply of affordable accommodation. Last year, we published a comprehensive policy for housing in The Way Forward for Housing. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home. We are increasing investment in affordable housing through the Housing Corporation to over £1.2 billion by 2003-04, almost double the level in 2000-01.
	There is also a part for the private sector to play in meeting housing demand. The Housing Investment Programme and the Best Value in Housing regime encourage local authorities to set out clear strategies to tackle empty property. We fully support the action of the Empty Homes Agency to encourage and cajole local authorities to implement effective strategies and will refer to empty property strategies in the revised guidance on homelessness. Such strategies are an opportunity for authorities to assess the potential of empty homes in their area and seek to engage their owners to bring back the homes into use. As a last resort, local housing authorities already have powers to make compulsory purchases of empty properties.
	I should also like to touch on the operation of the Children Act 1989 with regard to homeless families. I have no doubt that some noble Lords will be aware of the concerns of Shelter regarding this issue, having followed discussion of the Bill in another place or perhaps having seen recent media coverage. These concerns were prompted by two recent court cases in which the obligations of a social services authority under the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation and financial support for children in need were considered.
	The Government take this matter very seriously and are giving it careful consideration. It has become clear to me that we need further evidence of how the provisions of the existing Act work in practice. I intend to meet representatives of local government and social services very shortly to obtain that information, and I shall report to the House in due course. In particular, I shall report to the House before the Bill has completed its passage through this House.
	I return to the Bill. Its provisions also cover the allocation of social housing by local housing authorities. The Bill improves the rights of new applicants for local authority housing and existing social tenants seeking a transfer. Under Clause 13, local housing authorities will have to give proper consideration to all applications, whether these are for a first-time tenancy or for a transfer, and the current requirement to maintain a housing register will be abolished.
	Clause 13 of the Bill will also replace the power which enables local housing authorities to carry out so-called "blanket exclusions" of whole categories of would-be applicants with a much more focused power, which will enable authorities to decide to treat individual applicants as ineligible, but only where they meet stringent criteria. These are that the applicant, or a member of his or her household, has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour; that the behaviour was serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority; and that this behaviour still renders the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant at the time the application for housing is considered.
	This provision is intended to allow authorities to reject only those cases where the applicant, or a member of his or her household, has a record of serious unacceptable behaviour and has made no efforts to reform. We shall make clear in statutory guidance that unacceptable behaviour will not include, for example, minor rent arrears, and, in particular, it will not include rent arrears which are the result of delays in the payment of housing benefits which were outside the control of the applicant.
	It is important that human rights are respected. Clause 13 provides that an applicant who finds that his or her application has been thrown out on these grounds will have the right to ask for a review of the decision.
	I know that concerns have been expressed about these provisions. Local housing authorities will, in some cases, need to perform a delicate balancing act when considering using these powers. This has certainly been the most difficult aspect of the Bill to shape. However, I believe that we have got the balance about right.
	Clause 15 will give authorities the flexibility to draw up transparent allocation policies which reflect their local circumstances. This clause will also give applicants the right to obtain information about how their application is being handled and to ask for a review of key decisions by the authority.
	The Government want to see authorities move towards allocation systems which allow both new applicants and existing tenants a greater degree of choice from the available accommodation which fits their needs. We believe that this is the best way to ensure that social tenancies are sustained and communities are maintained. We are therefore funding some 27 pilot schemes at present to test different approaches to choice-based letting. While these schemes are led by local housing authorities, there is a very strong emphasis on ensuring that they work in partnership with registered social landlords and other stakeholders.
	The Bill and the priority need order, to which I referred, are at the heart of the Government's wider efforts to tackle homelessness. The Government are determined to ensure that people who become homeless through no fault of their own should be helped to secure suitable, affordable accommodation. The Homelessness Bill is vital to this work. It will strengthen the safety net, ensure that local housing authorities take a strategic approach to addressing homelessness in their areas, and allow authorities to be responsive to local circumstances in their allocation of social housing. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in rising to the Dispatch Box for the first time as a shadow spokesman, I declare an interest by reminding the House that I am an elected member of a London local authority. I shall try not to refer too much to that local authority, although it has a good record on most aspects of its services—including housing—and, like all other local authorities, it will be greatly affected by the Bill before us today.
	The provisions which make up the Bill were snatched from the jaws of the death of the Homes Bill, which, rightly, bit the dust as a result of the general election. In general, the provisions have been supported by the Opposition in both Houses, but not without reservations about some of the practical implications associated with them.
	Increasing the priority categories—including now the "invisible"—which qualify for permanent housing over and above those already in the 1996 Act, however justified this may be, will have an enormous impact on local authorities' ability to carry out their duties. As, indeed, will the requirement to provide temporary accommodation for as long as it takes to find suitable permanent accommodation which meets the requirements of the homeless person—a position which can be further affected by the provisions for review and appeal of housing authority decisions.
	I am speaking only of London at the moment—although I am sure the situation is reflected in other metropolitan authorities—where an ever increasing number of vulnerable, threatened or homeless people are already in temporary accommodation, often, as the Minister said, entirely unsuited to their own situation or that of their families. They continue to remain in it because of the scarcity of reasonable, permanent housing into which they can be settled.
	In England alone, the number of households living in bed and breakfast accommodation has risen nearly three-fold since 1997, from 4,100 in the first quarter of that year to 11,340 in the second quarter of 2001. The cost is phenomenal, both in terms of financial outlay and human suffering. Extending the current categories of those deemed to be a priority will inevitably increase the current tensions in the demand for and availability of both temporary and permanent housing. No amount of government exhortations will change that situation in the short term.
	As the Minister said, Clause 13 abolishes the duty on local authorities to maintain a housing register. If this is done, one can only question what requirements there will be for them to record applications made to them under the new provisions and their outcomes. In truth, the removal of the requirement for a housing register will not be mourned, particularly by those who have been on the waiting list for years. However, their chances of finding housing in the statutory sector is not likely to improve as the erasing of the housing register is, in reality, an admission that councils will not be able to consider offering housing to any but those on the priority list.
	This, of course, has the additional effect of making it difficult to create a balanced community. There is a great need to ensure that, in estates or areas in which statutory housing is predominant, there are sufficient residents who do not need support themselves and who can help provide stability for the more vulnerable living alongside them.
	With this in mind, and conscious that many local authorities have divested themselves of part or all of their housing stock to housing associations or other voluntary social landlords and many working closely with landlords in the private sector, it is odd that the duty to assist with the housing of homeless people is not to be statutorily extended to them. I note from the debate in another place the proposal, confirmed by the Minister in his opening remarks, of a requirement for housing associations and registered social landlords to co-operate with the local authority. It is proposed, however, that this will be laid down in regulation and not in statute. We shall wish to test that concept during our further consideration of the Bill.
	I said that the Government consider this matter capable of being directed by regulation, and I understand that consultation has just started. However, I should draw attention to our concern that the regulations are not currently available for consideration. I seek an assurance from the Minister that they will be published before Committee stage so that they can be taken into account.
	The Government have also indicated that they will prepare guidelines on the definition of "vulnerable groups". These may be contained in the order referred to by the Minister, but are presently not available. I seek the same assurance that they, too, will be published before Committee stage. I do not see how we can properly consider the provisions if we do not have access to that information.
	The designation and rationale of the extended categories of those in priority need are fundamental to the Bill and will have an immense impact on how local authorities implement it. It seems, at the very least, lax that the draft regulations on both matters are not available. It would also have been helpful had the Minister published the guidelines on how the Government plan to deal with private sector rogue landlords, and also their proposals for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has published a consultation paper on private sector rogue landlords which I shall make available. It was published two or three weeks ago.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his intervention.
	As I suggested, private sector landlords have an important role to play in helping to resolve the problems of homelessness. Therefore, we should welcome seeing and discussing the licensing of HMOs in particular, since a "light touch" regime should mean that there continues to be low-cost rented housing of a good and regulated standard in the private sector. That is an immensely important protection against homelessness for those who are able to live in that kind of accommodation. Such accommodation will be vital, since the proposed new subsection (2A) to Section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 within Clause 15 of the Bill suggests—I believe for the first time—that access to statutory housing could be means-tested.
	The homelessness strategy which local authorities will be required to produce will have to cover not only their plans for identifying and supporting the homeless or putative homeless and the provision of advice, but also allocations and their ability to meet the totality of the needs of those presenting to them. It will, in truth, be a major part of any "housing" strategy—because one cannot be carried out without the other. I wonder, therefore, why the term is not "housing strategy" or "homeless and allocations strategy". Indeed, either might have provided a better title for the Bill.
	The plight of the homeless moves us all. The sight of young people—and often those who are not so young—sitting at night in particular, under sleeping bags in doorways, in all weathers, is unacceptable. The Rough Sleepers Unit has done an excellent job. I believe that there is yet another consultation in progress, which will not (once again) be completed within the time-scale of the Bill, on its future. But it is of great relevance to the legislation.
	The good intentions behind the Bill are manifest, and are supported as such. Its contents must be dealt with against a background of falling numbers as regards new social housing. According to the DETR, the figures were down, from 150,000 in the period 1993-96 to 95,000 in the period 1997-2000. There is a need to improve the administration of housing benefit. Some local authorities are not performing at all well and should be relieved of their responsibility in this area. The number of empty homes stands at an estimated three-quarters of a million in all sectors. Each of these aspects can contribute to homelessness.
	We welcome, however, the recognition that there are people whose anti-social behaviour is such that they put themselves beyond the need for further consideration by the local authority from whose accommodation they have been evicted. Again, there is a suggestion of more statutory guidelines. And can we please see those?
	The Bill is a many-headed hydra. Although, we support it in general, during its passage we shall want to test some of its assumptions and its practical application.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests. I am a president of the National Housing Federation, president of the National Housing Forum and a patron of the Empty Homes Agency.
	The speed with which this important piece of legislation has hit the tracks in this Session is in stark contrast to its slow progress in the previous one. We welcome that change. We are especially glad the Part I "fell off" along the track. Nevertheless, it is a quarter of a century since the Liberal MP, Stephen Ross, piloted the first Housing (Homeless Persons) Act through Parliament in the form of a Private Member's Bill. Despite a substantial increase in our national wealth since the 1977 Act, there are still many homeless people on our streets and in our communities.
	The Minister outlined the Bill's purpose, and he knows that we agree with, and welcome, much that it contains. However, he will be aware from the speeches made in this House and by my colleagues in another place when the previous Bill received its Second Reading, that there are still some matters on which we should like to make progress.
	Perhaps I may deal first with allocations. The Bill sets out a new framework for the allocation of social housing. At present, many local authorities operate policies that deny people in need access to housing for reasons of rent arrears. That is often connected with the maladministration of housing benefit.
	I welcome the Ministers remarks today, and the Government's housing Green Paper stated that the intention was to put an end to these types of practices. However, despite the Minister's words, we on these Benches are not convinced that the Government have got these matters quite right. We shall seek to press amendments preventing applicants being deemed ineligible for accommodation before their needs have been assessed. We shall also put forward amendments defining the circumstances in which local authorities can reduce the priority given to applicants. I welcome the Ministers remarks on that point. We shall also propose amendments in relation to the notification of priority given and the right to a review of such decisions. We want to strike a balance between meeting housing need and providing local authorities with the discretion not to house anti-social tenants.
	We shall continue to pursue amendments regarding accommodation for applicants taking up their statutory right to a review of their housing need. Local authorities have a power to do that, but, as the Bill stands, an applicant for a review must appeal to the High Court if the local authority will not house that person. We believe that the appeal should be to the county court—not only in the interests of justice, but as a matter of consistency in administration.
	We shall propose an amendment to give homeless people a reasonable length of time to consider their decision on a final offer of accommodation. Some local authorities give as little as 24 hours. Given the importance of ensuring that tenants need to be able to sustain their tenancies, I am at a loss to understand why the Government have been reluctant to concede this matter.
	I turn briefly to provisions for dealing with non-priority homeless people. Again, I welcome the Minister's remarks. But we are not convinced that the statutory duties are strong enough to ensure a consistent, adequate standard of help and advice for this group.
	I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to give definitive answers on these matters today. I should welcome an opportunity to discuss them with him before the next stage of the Bill.
	There is another area of the Bill where we have some concerns and that is the role of registered social landlords. With registered social landlords set to overtake local authorities as the largest providers of social housing by 2004 it is vital that we have a clear and fair framework for their role in helping local authorities to meet housing need in their area. I am sure the Minister is aware that Shelter in particular has concerns in that area. The National Housing Federation is concerned about the accuracy of some of the figures for housing need lettings by registered social landlords when assisting local authorities. I hope that we can also discuss that matter before the Committee stage.
	I now turn to some of the wider issues that we believe will influence the effectiveness of this legislation in tackling homelessness. I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister refer to the problem with the Children Act. I also read the article which appeared, I believe, in the Observer a week or so ago. It certainly had shades of "Cathy Come Home". I believe that the heading referred to homeless families losing their children.
	I turn to other government measures. We welcome the new proposals and the consultation on the regulations to extend priority need to homeless vulnerable groups. I am particularly concerned about those who have suffered domestic violence. That matter has not been dealt with by the Government as quickly as many of us were led to believe would be the case. I should like some assurances from the Minister that the regulations will dovetail in every way with the Bill. It is clear from experience with the Rough Sleepers Unit that such groups need quality aftercare to sustain their tenancies and that those with drug and alcohol related problems need good rehabilitation facilities. That is why I mention once again the Government's Supporting People programme. It needs to be effective and adequately funded to back up everything we are talking about.
	As the Minister said, we expect the Government to publish a national homelessness strategy in December 2001. As we have heard today, local authorities will also be required to draw up their own strategies. In both cases we believe—I echo here what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said—that these are vital strategies. They must not be add-on strategies; they must be an integral part of wider housing policy and provision. It is important that local authorities are required to consult closely on these plans with registered social landlords for them to be effective.
	Previous speakers have mentioned the dreadful effects of temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We welcome the fact that the Government are setting up a unit to tackle that. However, the good intentions behind the Bill and the various projects I have discussed will not be realised unless the supply of affordable housing is increased and unless we have an efficient and streamlined system of housing benefit.
	The total housing stock of local authorities and registered social landlords has decreased by something like 150,000 units since 1996. Shelter believes that 100,000 new units need to be built each year while Alan Holmans of Cambridge University estimates the figure to be 80,000 to 85,000. The former DETR predicted that only 35,000 new units would be built each year. The reality is that last year only 17,000 units were built. That is the scale of the problem. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us what resources for new homes he has argued for with the Chancellor and what the prospects are for housing in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report to be issued in a couple of weeks' time.
	As has already been mentioned, there is much poor accommodation in the private rented sector. Nationally, we have three-quarters of a million empty homes, about 600,000 of which are in the private sector. As others have said, we recognise that the private rented sector plays an important role in meeting housing need, but it is the most economically and socially disadvantaged people who often end up in the poorest housing. A long promised first step to improving such housing would be a statutory scheme for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The Government are aware that they will have an opportunity to keep their promise by backing just such a scheme as part of Dr Des Turner's Private Member's Bill on energy conservation. As a Brighton MP he has much experience of that housing sector. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments on empty properties. I urge him to consider some other suggestions that he did not mention such as equalisation of VAT on new build and refurbishment, higher council tax rates on empty properties and a new housing market renewal fund.
	I have probably detained the House long enough. In the ensuing couple of hours I look forward very much to hearing the valuable personal knowledge of my noble friend Lord Fearn when he makes his maiden speech. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will bring her expertise on London and regional government to the debate.
	I end by stating where we on these Benches stand on this issue. We believe that everyone should be able to live in a decent, affordable home within a strong community. But we also have made it clear that if current housing pressures are not tackled, homelessness will rise and that will undermine not only this piece of legislation but also the other initiatives to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Housing is a valuable investment not just for the people who live in it but also for their communities. I believe that it is a vital part of a successful and flourishing economy. We welcome the Bill and look forward to taking part in its further stages.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Churches National Housing Coalition. As such perhaps I may say how much we welcome the Bill. Both in terms of professional commitment and the huge task undertaken by volunteers, the faith communities have for a long time taken significant action on behalf of homeless people. Having seen a similar Bill fail because of the onslaught of the general election, I hope that this Bill will be expedited by us all with speed; it is needed.
	In 1988 I became what was then known as Provost of Sheffield. At my first celebration of Holy Communion one December Tuesday morning, six of us gathered at the Lord's Table. Across the Cathedral from us in the south aisle sat a further six people, all homeless men seeking shelter from a bitter December morning. They brought with them six different stories of alcohol problems, mental health problems, family breakdown, unemployment and of their personal breakdowns following their experiences in the last war. When the Cathedral started to offer a coherent service to such people we quickly found ourselves meeting the needs of up to 40 people at any one time, of all ages, both sexes and of every social background.
	When I moved to Guildford in 1994 I discovered that there were already in place in that town a number of excellent projects for homeless people. We soon added to them in Farnham and Woking and other parts of Surrey and north-east Hampshire which formed the diocese. Even in the midst of prosperity and success there were those whose lives had so collapsed that they were in effect homeless. Homeless people are to be found everywhere.
	The Bill offers the possibility of a strategic approach by local and national government. It is good news that local authorities will be required to publish reviews and strategic documents. I understand that a national strategy paper is due to appear in December. We look forward to hearing more on that. We similarly welcome the targets seeking to reduce by two-thirds the number of rough sleepers by April of next year.
	I am sure that it is not just people in faith communities and churches who have been scandalised and offended in recent years by the growth of the number of people sleeping on our streets or, as clergy sometimes discover in their pastoral ministry, by families seeking to live in homes without a stick of furniture, with no resources, often unable to heat their homes. These things are an offence in a society of such great wealth and opportunity.
	We have long needed a national and consistently-applied strategy. Across the political spectrum housing policy has been a Cinderella for many decades. We look for all-party support as we seek to build up a coherent national strategy consistently applied.
	When considering the needs of all homeless people, I hope that Ministers will assure us that they will develop strategic plans to include non-priority homeless people—single people, for example, below retirement age; and families whose children have now grown up.
	I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness. I, too, want to press the Minister about the reference in new Section 160A to "unacceptable behaviour". People we have dealt with in our own ministry include not only those who do not pay but also the mentally ill and those with alcohol or drug problems. It is easy for local authorities to refer to "unacceptable behaviour" with the result that the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society are not met.
	I support the comments about the need for the issue to be viewed in a wider setting. Those of us who live in the South East know that we face a serious crisis with lack of sufficient low cost and affordable housing to meet the needs even of those in employment serving our public services. It would be good to know that the Government have coherent and achievable plans to meet what is becoming a major crisis in the south of England. Failure to do so will ensure that any strategy designed to deal with the homeless will not succeed.
	I conclude by repeating our warm welcome for the Bill. We wish it success and we pray that it might bring good news to some of the most vulnerable people and families in our society.

Lord Fearn: My Lords, I would normally speak on tourism and most people expect me to do so. However, when considering my maiden speech in this House, I decided that homelessness and especially homeless young people is a subject dear to my heart and should take priority.
	Some time ago I slept with Jeremy Irons in a cardboard box on the steps of Westminster Cathedral. Half way through the night a group of very young people said to me, "This is a gimmick, isn't it?" I had always felt that it was. They asked, "Why don't you get out among the real homeless?" As a member of a local authority for 38 years—as I am still—and as housing spokesman in another place at that time I decided that I had better do so. I went to the hostel of the Simon Community, working in London. It caters mainly for the elderly. It was and is doing an excellent job. Members of that community invited me to go out in their van to see for myself. I did so for a few nights. On the first night, in February, it was snowing heavily. They took me to a park in the middle of an affluent community with many buildings and many businesses. There were 214 homeless young people there. I know that the figure was 214 because I counted them. I thought that I was going to meet druggies and alcoholics. However, having spoken to them all, there was none. I thought, "They're all unemployed". I asked; and the majority was not unemployed. Those people had never been able to get together the three months' rental which the Rachman society still demands in this city. I followed up the investigation and found that that was so.
	So we must not always say that those young people between 17 and 25 are suffering from drugs, alcohol and disease. They are not. They cannot afford rental unless seven or eight of them band together to live in two rooms. That does not apply only to cities—I have visited Liverpool where voluntary and church organisations do great work among the homeless—but also to towns like Southport which has an affluent society. It is a beautiful town of 100,000 people. It is a seaside town with 12 miles of beach. There is plenty of housing but probably of the wrong kind. We have managed to buck the trend of the tourism downturn. We now have 4 million day visitors. It is a nice town.
	However, there is another scene: the young homeless. I have been a member of Light for Life, a church organisation, which goes out among them. I am President of the Schizophrenia Fellowship. In the Schizophrenia Fellowship drop-in centre it is fine at 6.30 every night. But after 6.30 the young people are again out on the streets. There are not many in our town but they are there.
	Every two months at midnight my doorbell rings. A young chap leans on the door—he is a very decent type and has been coming regularly for nearly two years—and asks, "Can you find me accommodation?" Every two months I find him bed and breakfast accommodation. He does not stay there for more than three or four days. He disappears again and we find him back under the pier. He cannot go under the pier at present because a heritage grant is making it one of the best piers in Great Britain—and I am one of those Peers! It is a beautiful pier but the young chap cannot go there now; he has gone to a garden I know of. I asked him, "What do you really want?" He said, "All I want is a place of my own". He does not want a hostel. Many of them do not want hostels. They would like a unit, a unit that could be provided, if the Bill does its job properly, by the local authority.
	Having been a member of two local authorities—I still am after 38 years—I know that that is not happening and probably will not happen unless more resources are put behind the Bill. In saying "more resources", I include probably the best organisations for solving the homelessness problem among young people: the housing associations. Wherever possible, they have steamed ahead; they are the only ones who have taken the risk and who have had the courage to give young people single units. Therefore, if we have any resources to spare, not necessarily through the local authorities but certainly through central government, they should be placed where they can be best used. I believe that the housing associations meet that need.
	In my area we have a housing association. For two years I did not know that it existed, until someone in the Schizophrenia Fellowship said, "I have a unit, Quest Housing". Quest Housing is now spreading and is doing a great job in providing those units. There are others. For example, in London there is Camden Housing, which has also taken the initiative in providing homes for single, young people—young people who are on their own. I have had figures, details and documents from Centrepoint, which is an organisation that is also doing the right thing by young people, and CDS Liverpool has the STEPS system in place now, providing single units for young people.
	As the Bill passes through the House I hope that single, young people will always be remembered and that something, not necessarily in relation to local authorities but probably in relation to housing associations, will emerge so that we can, once and for all, clear what is the "big issue".

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, and to congratulate him on his most informed and moving maiden speech. He has spoken with real feeling and, amazingly, without the need for notes. The noble Lord, Lord Fearn, is a Peer from Southport and, as a fellow Lancastrian, I can assert that that is one of the many points in his favour.
	For many years he worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland before becoming the MP for his local town. Following that he was Liberal Democrat spokesman for health and tourism. Clearly, he has a tremendous sense of civic pride and loyalty, being a local councillor and being involved in many local activities, including sports and drama. His wide interests and dedication to a number of political and social issues will make him a great asset to your Lordships' House.
	Already much has been said about the Homelessness Bill here, in another place and by numerous concerned organisations. Shelter says that the Bill,
	"if implemented effectively ... offers the best opportunity in a generation to make real progress in tackling and preventing homelessness in all its forms".
	I welcome, like other noble Lords, the duty of local housing authorities to formulate strategies based on reviews. I welcome the Minister's emphasis in relation to vulnerable people. I shall not repeat what has been said, but I want to focus, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, on the homelessness of young people. I am reassured that the Minister has already referred to concerns that I shall express.
	The report in the Observer mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, gives horrendous examples of homeless families being threatened with having their children taken away following a High Court ruling in May. Perhaps the Minister will respond further to that if he can.
	The Children Act 1989 places the needs of children above all other considerations when offering council services, and has regularly been invoked to provide homeless families with permanent accommodation. In legal terms, the needs of children, are "paramount". However, recent court cases brought by the London boroughs of Lambeth, where I live, and Barnet have successfully challenged the Act. Homeless families have been told that the whole family cannot be helped and that the children of the families should go into care. That is because both Lambeth and Barnet are short of accommodation for homeless families. Presumably, other councils could follow suit and separate families. That loophole must be dealt with.
	One woman threatened with eviction has two children aged 10 and 15. She has been told that she became intentionally homeless when her former partner sold their house and spent the proceeds. As she said to the Observer,
	"That doesn't make any difference now".
	She is terrified about what may become of her and the children. Another woman in the East Midlands was told that her children, one aged three months and the other six years old, should be taken into care after she moved into a hostel for the homeless. She is still breastfeeding the baby. That is punitive and unacceptable.
	A large body of research shows that separating children from their parents, particularly at a young age, is seriously damaging, both emotionally and psychologically. It is shocking that homeless people, who may have suffered great misfortunes in their lives, should be punished through their children. It is shocking that local councils should allow that to happen for purely financial reasons, and that they should play with children's lives. Such action could have the most dreadful consequences.
	What would children say if they were consulted about this situation? Consultation is enshrined in both the letter and the spirit of the Children Act. Some children would be too young to comment, but older children would be concerned about their families, their schooling, their relationships and their future. The Department of Health Social Care Group has been instrumental in listening to children following appalling scandals in the childcare system. I suggest that we are heading for new scandals if local authorities needlessly separate children from their parents.
	Homelessness does not necessarily involve abuse or neglect of children. It means being unfortunate enough to have nowhere to live. It calls for support, not punishment of the worst kind. Deprivation can relate to more than physical deprivation, and neglect to more than material neglect. I suggest that separating children from their parents could result in serious emotional neglect and deprivation.
	This Government have shown themselves to be concerned about the well-being and achievement of children. There will be an overarching children's strategy. There is already a Children and Young People's Unit, whose remit is to co-ordinate the strategy and to,
	"join up Government policy and thinking on children and young people".
	There is a Children's Fund; a Social Exclusion Unit, a Minister and a Cabinet Committee on Children. The Sure Start programme helps and supports families at a local level. All that is progressive and visionary, but surely we cannot allow paradoxes to creep in. The rulings on the rights of homeless people and their children are paradoxes of a particularly nasty kind.
	I look to my noble and learned friend the Minister for some enlightenment on whether his earlier statements will resolve the issue, or if there could be an amendment to the Bill or to the Children Act 1989 to confirm that when a child's need is expressed, that need can be related to the accommodation of them and their families, whether or not they are regarded as intentionally homeless.
	This constructive Bill will remove many anomalies. I hope that during its passage we shall resolve this essential and urgent issue of the potential separation of parents and their children.

Lord Best: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, particularly as he has brought personal testimony and experience of homelessness on the ground. That will act as an antidote to the dry statistical material that I shall bring before your Lordships. I declare my interest at the outset as director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I am responsible for many—I almost said innumerable—reports on the subject of homelessness over the years. From that perspective I want to share some thoughts with your Lordships.
	I greatly welcome the Bill, which picks up a number of points that have emerged from some of those many reports. It is an excellent Bill and it will do much good. I have asked myself whether it addresses some of the underlying causes of homelessness, because if we treat only the superficial manifestations of problems, we shall never really solve this huge national issue. I feel that the Bill speaks to some of those underlying causes.
	Sometimes, homelessness is a result of personal or family circumstances. The Bill speaks to some of those circumstances, giving people rights and opportunities where they might not have had them. Sometimes, homelessness is caused by the behaviour of the people who supply or finance housing. That includes private landlords and even the social housing landlords, which used to be mostly local authorities but today are often housing associations. Shelter and others have expressed concern about the behaviour of some landlords. The Minister has already made some reassuring comments on that score.
	I suggest that the main underlying cause of homelessness is the fact that there are simply not enough homes to go round in some areas of high demand. That includes London and the South East, but there are many other hotspots elsewhere, including rural areas and my own city of York, in the far north, and other places. If there are too few homes for the number of households, somebody will miss out—usually the poorest and most vulnerable in society—and homelessness will follow.
	My analysis comes from the statistical evidence that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has been able to work its way through. I want to share my thoughts on whether the current shortages, particularly in high-pressure areas, are likely to get worse over the next 10 to 20 years, or whether we are likely to see some substantial improvements.
	I shall try to spare your Lordships some of the most boring statistics, but the number of households formed each year continues relentlessly to grow year by year. Even though our birth rate is relatively low, we go on generating more households. One reason for that is that we live longer and do not vacate our homes for the next generation as quickly as we used to. That is good news for many of us, but it has housing implications.
	We also have a great increase in the number of single-person households. That trend seems likely to grow. Nowadays, people settle down and form couples in their 30s, not their 20s. Some people choose not to marry at all. Other people marry but divorce or separate later. We go on generating more single-person households.
	Then there is the net increase of people moving into this country, compared with the number who move out. New statistics to be published by the Office for National Statistics this Thursday, of which we have already had a preview in a press release, show that the actuaries side of the ONS has uprated its figures on the inward flow of people to this country compared with the numbers who leave. That will also bring extra pressures to bear. Those pressures may be welcome in other regards—we wish London to be a great international centre and we need people to do many jobs in our service industries and throughout the economy—but we must acknowledge that if we have more people coming into the country than leaving, that has housing implications.
	To cut to the chase, when those factors are added together, 200,000 extra homes are needed each year just to cope with the growth in the number of households that are formed each year. Even achieving those 200,000 extra homes each year will only leave us in the same position as we are in today on homelessness and housing shortage, as manifested in hostels for homeless people, bed-and-breakfast hotels and the rest. If we want to improve on that position, we must increase the output of housing to meet the demand from the households that will be formed and to make inroads into the backlog of unmet housing need. That will bring us to a realistic figure of perhaps 225,000 extra homes required each year.
	As things stand, is it likely that we will achieve those numbers in the output of the house-building industry and the provision by the housing associations and registered social landlords? That seems a very slim prospect at present. Last year, the total number of new homes provided came to 177,000—the lowest number since 1924, excluding the war years. The economy is motoring pretty well, there is lower unemployment, more people are able to purchase their own home and mortgage interest rates are relatively low, yet our house-building and construction industry had a poor year. The figures for this year look only marginally better.
	The housing associations have not been having a good time as providers on the social side. The number of homes that they own has grown, but that is because they have been taking over council stock, not because they have been building and producing new homes in sufficient numbers. We were delighted to hear the announcement before the election that the allocation from the Housing Corporation to the housing associations was to be doubled, more or less, over the next two or three years. That will make a difference, but not anything like enough of a difference to cover the total number of new homes that are likely to be needed in the next 10 to 20 years to meet the additional numbers of households and to make inroads into the backlog of unmet need. If we continue to go backwards year by year and if shortages grow, homelessness as a national issue will get progressively worse.
	While I greatly welcome the Bill, which tidies up and extends a number of important issues that have concerned many of us, I point your Lordships to the underlying problem and deep-seated cause of homelessness that will remain with us if we do not invest through the public and private sectors in the extra homes that will be needed in the next 10 to 20 years.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I, too, strongly support the Bill. I shall briefly speak about some of the accommodation needs of young offenders—probably not the most popular group about whom noble Lords will speak this afternoon. I declare an interest as chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, on his moving and excellent maiden speech and express my support for the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about children and young people being separated from their families and taken into care because of an apparent shortage of social housing. That seems a bizarre social policy.
	As many of your Lordships know, the Government have undertaken a major reform of the youth justice system. The accommodation needs of 16 to 17 year-old young offenders still present significant problems for the new multi-agency youth offending teams. Too many young people on community orders are homeless or lack suitable accommodation to prevent them drifting further down the path of crime. Particular problems arise in relation to young offenders who are on detention and training orders, where they serve half their sentence in custody and half in the community.
	At any one time, some 2,500 or so young people are in custody under such an order. Since the average time spent in custody is approximately four months, about three times that number are affected each year. We know that many 16 and 17 year-olds in that group will not return to their parental homes or to the accommodation that they occupied previously. As we improve the quality of the custodial regimes for many of these young people, we find ourselves thwarted in our progress with them because they have nowhere suitable to live on their release from custody.
	I believe that two sections of the Bill can help with the problem. The first relates to Clause 3, which sets out how local housing authorities should go about devising their homelessness strategy and whom they should involve. I hope that youth offending teams, which are separate from social services authorities, will be fully consulted and fully involved in the actions taken locally under Clause 3. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances that, in guidance on the new Bill, that point will be fully covered.
	The second issue relates to Clause 15(3), which defines priorities for allocation of housing accommodation. A priority group is defined in the Bill as,
	"people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds".
	Again, I hope that the Minister will feel able to incorporate in this category young offenders who are on the caseloads of youth offending teams where the teams are experiencing great difficulty in securing suitable accommodation for the young people.
	I welcome the Minister's recognition in his speech that young people sentenced to custody, along with other young people, are a priority group in the draft Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order that has been put out for consultation. However, as he made clear earlier in his speech, some of the remarks made in the Third Reading debate on the Bill in the other place about criminals jumping the housing queue were distinctly ill founded.
	I am also aware that in the consultation process some local authorities may seem to have suggested—mistakenly, in my view—that the provisions in the draft order will encourage parents to kick their 16 and 17 year-olds out of home. That is why we continue to need the type of assurance that the Minister has given this afternoon.
	The daily reality is that there is a general lack of appropriate housing, often with personal support, for homeless young people, as the Social Exclusion Unit has demonstrated. In some local areas there is confusion as to whether social services or housing departments are responsible for these young people. Homeless young people who offend usually do so as a result of family networks breaking down. If they are to secure education, training and employment, they need stable accommodation and, in some cases, their healthcare needs must be attended to. As the Minister mentioned, we know that young offenders who are homeless on release from custody are twice as likely to reoffend as those who have accommodation. Youth offending teams need our support in this area. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some of the reassurances that I seek this afternoon.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I declare an interest as a commercial and residential landlord. I very warmly welcome the Bill this afternoon. More households are now in temporary accommodation than at any time since the late 1970s. They number 70,000, with 40,000 in London alone. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has already told us that there has been a tripling in the number of people staying in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They now amount to 11,000.
	I want to concentrate on the experience of homelessness for some families and its consequences for their children. Thus, I hope to underline my support for the Bill. I recently visited a Barnardo's project in Brixton for families in temporary accommodation. I was introduced to Vian, who is from Iraq. Her brother left Iraq and she was consequently imprisoned with her mother by the authorities there for a few years. While in prison, she conceived a child. She escaped from Iraq to Syria and there obtained from the British vice-consul documents certifying her experience.
	However, when she arrived in the UK, those somewhat tatty documents were found to be insufficient for the Home Office. For 10 months she lived without any income support whatever. She resides in the living room of a one-bedroomed flat with her brother and his partner. Through the help of Barnardo's she has managed to obtain a bed for the floor. She is at loggerheads with the partner of her brother. It must be very difficult for that partner to have a two year-old child sharing such a confined space. Clearly, there are also many experiences from her past with which she needs to come to terms. She was crying when she described them to me.
	I also want to mention another mother, Astrid, who is from Ecuador. Without the help of Barnardo's, she would not have been able to obtain the vouchers that she needs. For a long while she was helped by her friends, who have supported her tremendously since she arrived in this country. Her son, Camillo, is about four or five years-old. It was his birthday recently. The advice worker said that, normally when visiting a family, one has to be careful not to trip over the toys. There are no such problems when visiting that family. Astrid's friends clubbed together to buy her son a present for his birthday so that he would have at least one toy. That is the type of pressure under which the families whom we are discussing are living.
	On Friday I met Danny at the annual conference of Voice for the Child in Care, of which I am a patron. It provides advocacy services for children in care. Danny had run away from his foster home and had spent three months during the winter in a shed. He had been found and was then obliged to return to his foster home. He was not happy with the situation, but that is how matters stood. Although he is still a very young man, he now has a partner and a young child. He works with the Care Leavers Association, visiting prisons and talking to care leavers about his experience. He tries to help them in some way. Danny said to me, "I have never experienced happiness in my life". I hope very much that he comes to do so.
	He and his new family must be very much the type of people whom we have in mind with regard to this legislation. I very much hope that it will work towards meeting their needs. However, we must imbibe the truth shared with us by my noble friend Lord Best that in many areas sufficient housing is simply not available. None the less, strategic planning of the type encouraged by the Bill must be very welcome.
	I also want to mention the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit under its director, Louise Casey. Three years ago I met a young man at Piccadilly Circus. He had his crack pipe by his side and talked at a manic rate. He had a long beard and grime was deep in his skin. While I was speaking to him a young woman who had been begging in the subway came up and said to him, "Have you enough money to share with me so that we can buy some drugs together?" The RSU has been targeting such people, who are the so-called famous faces—those who have been on the streets for many years. It has already achieved its target of reducing the number by two-thirds. New homeless people arrive on the streets all of the time but the achievements are a tremendous commendation of the work of Louise Casey, of the charities involved, including Thames Reach and London Connection, and of the Government, who have provided the resources to help people who have been on the streets for so long to get off the streets and into accommodation. There is much more work to be done in terms of supporting them when they have arrived in accommodation—that point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
	The point about the regulations and the new qualifications for priority needs has already been covered. Those provisions are most welcome—particularly the extension relating to care leavers aged between 18 and 21. There is concern about allocations. I am glad that the Minister went to some lengths to offer reassurances in that regard. We shall examine the matter carefully in Committee.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I was concerned to learn of the families in the article in the Observer. I make it absolutely clear—the noble Baroness alluded to this—that the ability of the parents in those families to parent their children was not in question. The fact that they were threatened with losing their children was simply a question of housing—one recognises the strains that local authorities are under.
	Sometimes it appears that in this country we are not very good at valuing children. In view of the care system, the fact that 80 per cent of staff in residential care homes have no educational qualifications whatever and the remuneration that such staff receive, one begins to wonder what value we place on children, particularly when one compares the situation in this country with that on the Continent.
	We cannot afford not to value our children. That is perhaps more true now than it has ever been. Noble Lords will be aware of the so-called demographic timebomb—we are becoming older as a population and there are fewer young people. We need to invest in young people. The Chancellor is keen to ensure that those working in industry—our workforce—can contribute to our economy more fully. Children may be looked after because their parents are not available; parents may be very worried about their children's housing and financial conditions and may not be able to give their children the good start in life that they need and which would enable them in the long run to be confident and resilient contributors to our society.
	I warmly welcome the Bill, which I hope has a speedy progress through the House. Before I conclude, I repeat the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I hope that we shall soon see new regulations relating to houses in multiple occupation, which is a serious concern. I have spoken with mothers who have complained to their landlord about the state of hygiene of the lavatory. They have to take young children or babies into the lavatory with them. The landlord says, "That is how the tenants leave the facilities". That is not good enough. The new regulations will be most welcome. If the Minister could say when they are likely to be published that would be welcome.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, one of the objects of the Bill is to require local authorities to make a serious commitment to providing affordable housing for all those in priority need. Others—notably, the single and the childless—are currently entitled only to advice and assistance from local authorities. The evidence of Shelter is that the standard of that advice and assistance varies greatly and in some cases is wholly inadequate. In many cases applicants are simply given a list of bed-and-breakfast hotels. The Bill enables authorities to secure accommodation for those of the homeless who are not in priority need and will allow them greater flexibility to assist non-priority homeless families by providing housing for such applicants where they have the scope to do so.
	More than 11,000 homeless households—if a homeless person can, without irony, be called a householder—are currently housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Long stays in bed-and-breakfast hotels, whose standard is often low, can have a deleterious effect on the well-being of families and in particular on the health and education of children. The establishment of the Bed and Breakfast Unit to work with local authorities in reducing the number of homeless who are so accommodated is welcome, but that issue should be given real priority across central and local government. Bedsit and single-room tenants are six times more likely to die from fire than people living in properties that are occupied by single households. Illnesses that we supposed to be evils of the past, such as tuberculosis, recur.
	Another of the Government's aims is to reduce the number of people sleeping rough by two-thirds by April 2002. The Rough Sleepers' Unit is currently consulting on future strategy in that area. To meet the Government's manifesto commitment to keep the number of rough sleepers as low as possible, future work must focus on meeting the needs of vulnerable groups—in particular those with drug and alcohol problems and, above all, those with fragile mental health. Street sleeping is highly deleterious to health, even in fit people.
	The poor administration of housing benefit causes tenants to build up arrears and, in some cases, to be evicted from their homes. Therefore, the steps taken by the Department for Work and Pensions to improve administration are welcome. London has high levels of poor-quality housing and at the same time the number of people living in temporary accommodation is at an all-time high. More than 2.7 million people live in overcrowded or even dangerous accommodation across the country and in London the problem is acute. Living in poor quality "bed and breakfasts" can have a severe effect on the health, education and well-being of homeless families, especially on children. Bronchitis, colds and flu are commonplace. Children can suffer from mood swings, over-activity and impaired development. There can be few noble Lords who have not seen people—generally mothers and children—coming and going from that kind of accommodation and invariably appearing hopeless, demoralised and sometimes desperate. In the United Kingdom in the 21st century no citizens in a British city should look as if they were refugees from their own country. It is bad enough that such conditions should prevail in other, less fortunate, parts of the world.
	Apart from the human and emotional aspect of that kind of living, bed-and-breakfast accommodation is expensive, costing as much as three times more than housing people in the private sector. It is obviously a stopgap solution, bringing with it often very little more than a literal roof over a homeless person's head.
	But will local authorities be equipped to implement the new laws? For their success it is crucial that all agencies, including local and central government, housing associations and the voluntary sector work together to ensure that the solutions that are offered in the Bill come into force. The experience of Shelter, gained over 32 years, of offering advice and advocacy to individuals and families facing the prospect of losing their homes is invaluable; and seeking its help and counsel should be a priority with local authorities, particularly those in London. For instance, the Bayswater Families Centre, which is an independent facility, provides support to families in temporary accommodation in W2. A Shelter caseworker who is based at the project for four days a week provides impartial information on housing options, practical help for clients and, if necessary, advocates on their behalf with the local authority and other service providers.
	Shelter's Piccadilly advice centre is a leading supplier of advice and support for homeless people in the centre of London and is ideally placed to help people who are homeless and who are, at present, forced to sleep on the streets of the capital. Positive results of its work are that out of 60 casework clients, a quarter were permanently housed with the rest temporarily accommodated or awaiting housing. Last year, Shelter helped more than 3,500 people from Westminster. All of Shelter's services in London are underpinned by Shelterline—Britain's first 24-hour, free, national helpline. Set up in 1998 with the aim of providing information and housing advice to those who are often desperate, it had taken more than 200,000 calls by last summer.
	Helplines could be another weapon in local authorities' armouries to fight against homelessness and help to achieve the Government's strategy. Such helplines keep people in the picture and reduce the lonely, hopeless feeling of being forgotten. At present, Shelter is taking the highest number of calls in Westminster, although calls come from every London borough.
	We must hope that the Government's national homelessness strategy, due to be published soon, will take seriously the problem of the growing number of homeless people. The development of that strategy creates an unprecedented opportunity to complement the statutory framework set out in the Bill. It should raise the profile of homelessness across central and local government.
	Perhaps even more important is the need to promote greater awareness among the public of what it means to be homeless—its causes and complexities. At present, far too many people dismiss being without a roof over one's head as fecklessness. I have heard people say not only that it is their own fault that people are homeless but that they like or prefer it instead of understanding that homelessness is often the result of a succession of unfortunate but unavoidable circumstances. It is important that the public—the passengers on the bus who pass street sleepers—are awakened to the right of everyone to have a decent home to live in.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this Second Reading debate on an important Bill. The aim is to reform the legislation on homelessness and the allocation of social housing. That is clearly to be applauded. One of the most shaming sights in recent years has been the presence of individuals—many clearly in need of social care—sleeping rough on the streets of London, one of the world's richest cities. There are not only the obviously homeless but many others, often very young, occupying unsatisfactory, sometimes overcrowded and insanitary accommodation. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, movingly highlighted the plight of many such people. The Bill attempts to address those needs.
	However, I should like to raise an issue which probably affects only a minority, but which is nevertheless important to the people concerned. I refer to the problems that can sometimes affect same-sex couples concerning the right of succession to a tenancy agreement. There have been cases—one of which went as far as the European Court of Human Rights—in which the surviving partner of a same-sex couple has been rendered homeless. That case concerned a couple one of whom had devoted much time to caring for an ailing partner. When that partner died, the local council took steps to repossess the accommodation that they had shared. No alternative accommodation was offered to the remaining partner.
	As I said, the case went as far as the European Court, where it was unsuccessful. The local council was judged to have acted within its rights and to have been under no obligation to offer alternative accommodation. I gather that that is not possible in the case of a heterosexual couple, and can happen only in the case of local authority or social housing—where the remaining partner is unlikely to have the resources to opt for private accommodation. The case of a private tenancy was decided in favour of the remaining partner by the House of Lords. The private landlord seeking possession in that case failed.
	It is true that local authorities can grant joint tenancies to same-sex couples, so that the surviving partner can succeed to the tenancy, but there is no obligation upon them to do so. There appears to have been a change of attitude recently, but the survey conducted by Stonewall—to which I am indebted for its briefing—suggests that some local councils still have no policy on the matter. Same-sex cases are generally still dealt with on an individual, discretionary basis—unlike those involving unmarried heterosexual partners.
	That does appear to be an anomaly, which could be rectified by a simple amendment to the Bill to give to same-sex partners the same rights as now exist for unmarried heterosexual partners in terms of entitlement to succeed to a tenancy. There are safeguards in existing housing Acts to deal with problems of under-occupation that may arise on the granting of a right to succession. Ground 16 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 provides that landlords may seek possession if they believe that the dwelling to which a family member succeeds is too large for him or her and that they can provide suitable alternative accommodation. Ground 9 of the Housing Act 1988 gives landlords a general right to seek possession on the grounds that suitable alternative accommodation has been provided.
	I therefore hope that the Government may be prepared to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to put right that small anomaly. Incidentally, I understand that the law in Scotland has recently been amended to provide exactly the rights for same-sex couples that I seek.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise to follow the example of my noble friend Lord Listowel by talking about the relationship of homelessness to children. Homelessness leads to parental stress and family breakdown; to ill-health and to children's absence from school. It makes parenting well nigh impossible. Children who do not attend school do not get jobs, have nowhere to live, get involved in crime and drugs and suffer ill-health and unemployability.
	Not only the homeless themselves suffer. Tremendous damage is done to society as a whole. The social cost is huge. When I was preparing for this debate, I found on my shelves a report published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—I declare an interest as a fellow of that institution—entitled, The Real Cost of Poor Homes. It is dated 1996, so it may be a little out of date. It states:
	"It has been estimated that more money—as much as £2 billion—is being spent each year on treating illness arising from poor housing conditions than is spent by local authorities on their own housing stock."
	The Minister may have more recent figures.
	The report goes on to highlight my next point. It states:
	"Substandard housing conditions—whether in the form of overcrowding, noise pollution, cold and damp conditions or inadequate facilities—clearly have the potential to influence children's social and educational development. This can occur in several ways."
	To paraphrase, the report goes on to say that that affects children's ability to attend school and their health, and can affect their social relationships, because they are often moved from school to school as accommodation changes. It is often difficult for them to form satisfactory social relationships with their peer group because they tend to be stigmatised.
	The Government's understanding of those and associated problems led them to set up the Social Exclusion Unit, on which they deserve to be congratulated. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is considering the Shelter report, which says that many social service authorities are now routinely refusing to provide assistance for families as a whole and limiting their assistance to offering to take children into care. Of course, some families are unable to look after their children, but in those circumstances, children should still be taken into care by the proper route. However, if authorities are taking children into care simply to save money and avoid housing the parents, that is outrageous. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I am grateful for his promise to sort out that matter and tell us what is really happening.
	I turn for a moment to 16 and 17 year-olds. This is a tremendously vulnerable group involving young people without the support of their families. Social and personal support for this group is essential as an adjunct to housing, whether it is short-term housing—as it normally will be—or long-term. It is needed to help young people access training, stay with the training, and subsequently access work and stay with that work. They need to be picked up when they fail and encouraged to try and try again.
	It is also necessary to help them to learn how to be householders; how to be adequate tenants and manage their personal affairs in relation to their housing. It is to be hoped that the Government's Connexions scheme will solve that problem by providing mentors. But I have honest doubts as to whether enough suitable people will volunteer to be mentors. Helping people of that age is a trying and exacting job.
	Finally, I want to speak briefly about the fundamental challenge; that is, creating more affordable decent homes. Successive governments have tried and failed. But affordable housing tends to be treated as something that "we" provide for "them" or, from the homeless person's point of view, something that "they" provide to "us". Here I want to follow the well-known tradition of Miss Marples and make a comparison with my own village, which has more general application.
	Around 15 years ago there was a move in my village to build a village hall. The Government, through one agency or another, were prepared to provide 80 per cent of the cost; 10 per cent of the cost was secured from a charitable foundation and it was left to the village to find the other 10 per cent. It became a tremendous enterprise. People in that village who had not spoken to one another for 20 years were standing shoulder to shoulder in an effort to raise the money for that village hall. The Government set up a committee to consider active communities and the family. Perhaps the Minister will draw my story to the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I believe is chairing that committee.
	There may be ways of drawing communities into the provision of housing or the repair of derelict stock. It might even be possible to enable some homeless people to contribute to the solution of their problem. That would not only increase the stock of habitable affordable housing, but also give back to those people their self-respect. Such a programme could help to build communities as well as build houses.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to take part in this debate on a subject which is very dear to my heart. I detect that all contributors speak from their own experience, as I do also. Of all the legislation for which this Minister may be responsible, I hope he will be remembered most for the impact of the legislation before us today. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned changing the title of the Bill because of its wide-ranging interests. I thought perhaps the Minister would rather it was called the "Domelessness" Bill rather than the Homelessness Bill!
	I look around the Chamber and I see a number of Peers with similar experiences to my own; that is, as former Members of Parliament from all sides and all constituencies. Of all the issues with which I had to deal in the years that I had the honour to represent Edmonton, the one that caused me the most personal distress was housing. I listened to people who were in anguish, in shock, miserable and who brought their children with them not least because if they did not, they would not be able to come and talk to their local Member of Parliament. I can tell the House that on two occasions, when I had finished my surgery, I went out to my car and sobbed. I cried because of the helplessness that I felt about my ability to help people in that situation.
	All those connected with homeless people, not just Members of Parliament but members of councils also, experience a terrible feeling of hopelessness. If the Minister is able to advance on any of the fronts raised today, he will be doing a great service, not only for this Government, but also for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.
	The point was made more than once that the solution is to have more houses. I have always smarted at the fact that under the right-to-buy legislation our ability to solve that problem was diminished. I am not against people owning their own home; I have owned mine for 40 years. But it was ludicrous, at the same time as wanting to house people, to take away the council housing register—there are other registers now—and the social ability to house people. I do not take kindly to people who complain that, as a result of the right-to-buy, we have fewer houses available to house homeless people.
	I can remember on one occasion a counsellor called Stone in Westminster took me to a house in Paddington in multiple occupation. It was an eye-opener to me. He was trying to find support for some aspects of housing. He asked me to go along and see the problem. I saw a room on the ground floor and there could have been 50 people squashed into it. One lady said, "Will you come and see where I live?". I said I would and we went up to the third floor. She lived with three children and her mother—five of them—in one room.
	The landlord was receiving five rents because the rent was not charged per room; it was charged per individual. He was making a fortune, paid for by the rate payers and taxpayers of the country. All that benefit went to one person who had been clever enough to buy that house. The Chamber will understand that a number of businesses have sprung up which profit from the misery of people who are made homeless. Anything the Minister and his colleagues can do to tackle that problem will be welcomed.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Lord, Lord Laing, and myself are members of the board of trustees of a body called Charis. It is a charity in the Mile End Road which attempts to deal with drug and alcohol dependency. That organisation has a solution which works. Instead of a local authority spending money on taking people who are in the gutter off the street, drying them out, sending them out with a grant, and saying, "On your way", they say to the local authorities, "If you want us to do a job you will have to support us in it for at least 12 months". In that 12 months there is an educational programme. A relationship exists between that organisation, local employers and the local authority. When these sad men or women are rehabilitated, when an opportunity is found and they are given a job and find accommodation, they leave. That costs a lot of money but it is better than money being wasted on short-term palliatives.
	We have heard about what I call "best practice" from the Cross Benches. My noble friend Lord Best—he has been my noble friend for a long time—is an eminent person in the field of housing and will make a great contribution. He underlined that the basic solution, with all the efforts we are making, is to build more houses. He made a point of which I am well aware. Sadly, we now build fewer houses in this country, private or council, than we have since 1924. Fewer home are now being built. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, points out, the need to form housing units for families is growing all the time. That is a real problem and the Minister has a real challenge.
	Colleagues in this House will know of my long association with the Co-operative Movement. Perhaps I may point out that there are co-operative solutions to many of these issues. In a paragraph entitled, "Opening up the empties", the annual report of Co-op Home Services states:
	"CHS is now the biggest user of temporary social housing grant in the country. The development of short-life housing is the origin of our work and remains a central activity. This enables us to produce dwellings quickly and cheaply and to provide a rapid service of new lettings available primarily to local authorities ...
	"One of our central beliefs is that people should take on the rights and responsibilities of controlling their own housing. For people unwilling or unable to achieve individual ownership, co-ops offer the most effective way of achieving such control. We emphasise the requirements of people in housing need who, for various reasons, are likely to rely on social housing. Their prospects for breaking out of the dependency and patronage that social housing can bring provide part of the motivation for our operations".
	I am sure that the Minister does not need me to draw to his attention the enormous range of ways in which the housing of people in this country can be improved. In desperate times, however bad the economy—this is a desperate time—priorities have to be made and balances struck. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I are heavily involved in the welfare of park home owners. Often, people are driven out of what might be called better or more attractive accommodation and find themselves in park homes. That is not a bad thing. However, if one has a bad landlord or a bad site owner, that is indeed a great problem.
	The Minister has an opportunity to encourage a number of initiatives. Some 40 years ago, when I was on the council in Enfield, one of the things we did when we came to power was to begin to buy up private properties and use them for council social lettings. At the time, that was frowned upon. However, we are looking for ways in which this problem can be eased, and perhaps that is something that the Minister will encourage. It was called "pepper potting". One house would be picked from one street and one from another. That was not liked, except by the people who were housed, who thought that it was great.
	The greatest gift that the Government can give to hundreds and thousands of couples is to enable them to become tenants and eventually, when they climb the ladder, owner-occupiers. I hope that the Minister takes heart from this debate. There is not one speaker who has not spoken from the heart. My noble friend Lord Fearn spoke sincerely, as always, passionately and from his own experience. We have all had experience. I hope that the Minister will make use of such collective experience as the Bill passes through this House.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, on the day that the Bill completed its passage through another place, the Minister answered a Written Question from my honourable friend the Member for Winchester, with regard to the number of homeless people in each of the past three years. The Minister announced that those accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need—it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that this must have been, under the legislation, unamended—for the year 2000-2001 amounted to 114,350 households. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, "households" is not the aptest term in the circumstances. That means far more than 114,000 individuals.
	My noble friend Lord Fearn spoke movingly. He has often made me laugh. However, this is the first time I have been moved in such a way by a speech of his. He spoke about his experiences with the Simon Community. That is an organisation with which I have had the honour—I do not use that term lightly—to be associated for some years. Like my noble friend, I question the value of talking about these issues rather than "doing". Our job is both to talk and ensure that the outcome of our talking is to produce the best legislation. That is the tool that we have.
	As my noble friend Lady Maddock stated, we welcome the Bill. We welcome the emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, stated, we must address the causes. It is worth emphasising the reliance which the Government place on local authorities. That is right, but we must also remember that local authorities cannot perform their strategic role without the means to do so. I make that point knowing that the local government settlement is not far away. It is right that strategies must involve social services, as the Bill accepts, plus education, health, and so forth. There is a whole list which, to use a phrase for which I do not care, amounts to "joined-up services".
	Local authorities are the first resort of, among others, the many asylum seekers we wish to welcome into our communities. Perhaps I may give a flavour of the scale of the problem. I was struck by a figure that I saw recently relating to Southall in west London. That is a town with a population of between 60,000 and 70,000, which has had to accommodate about 12,000 refugees. Perhaps that is an unusual case, but it is a stark illustration of what we need to do for those who come into the country, not just those who have been here for some time.
	When briefing myself for the Bill, I was surprised to learn that housing associations do not yet fund 50 per cent of the housing stock, though they will soon do so. I was also surprised to learn from Shelter that the right to buy is still such an issue. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I thought that so much was already bought that, in a sense, the problem had passed. In 1999-2000, four times as many properties were sold under the right to buy as were built by housing associations. I know that it would be invidious to end that right and disqualify those who have not yet bought, but I am not yet convinced that it would not be for the greater good.
	As we all know, and as so many noble Lords have said, the real issue is the amount of stock; it is not a question of the identity of the landlord. However the cake is divided up, if it is not big enough there is a problem. As regards cash, I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, might have been present today to add her considerable argument to the debate. We must use all the mechanisms available.
	Perhaps it is not a matter for today, but I am aware that the Minister's responsibilities also include planning and that we await a planning Green Paper. By all accounts, it will focus on the interests of business. I hope that soon the Minister will prove us wrong and tell us that it will assist with the provision of affordable housing. That would not go amiss.
	While making it clear that we support the role of local authorities and housing associations, we are aware of the variability in letting policies. That matter was raised in another place. A figure which staggered me—I shall therefore impose it on your Lordships—showed that in 2000 more than 26,000 possession orders were made by social landlords. That was an increase of 12 per cent on the previous year and the figure has more than doubled in the past six years.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to another area in which there are inconsistencies and variabilities; that is, the treatment of same-sex couples. If she tables amendments to the Bill to deal with that, she will certainly have the support of Members on these Benches. I checked with my noble friend Lady Maddock before saying that and she reminded me that we brought forward such amendments in 1996.
	The position of many tenants is fragile. I recently read that 25 per cent of tenants in RSL accommodation are in full-time work with an average household income of £168 a week. One third of social housing tenants live in the most deprived 10 per cent of local government wards. Compare that with 85 per cent of mortgage holders who work full time and have an income of more than £600 a week.
	In London—and here I declare an interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly—the imbalance is an issue in the work being undertaken on the special development strategy. It would be so easy for there to be a preponderance of housing in one part of London, in the east, many parts of which are ripe for regeneration. A lack of balance would threaten the sustainability of the whole of the capital. The west needs affordable housing, too. Examining the scale of need in London has made members of the Greater London Authority question whether the construction industry has the capacity to provide what we know we need. That matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
	The supply of affordable housing needs support through the private rented sector. We welcome the steps which the Government will be taking with regard to licensing houses of multiple occupation, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. Inevitably, there have been references to housing benefit today. Many authorities are creakingly slowly managing to improve its administration. It is not an area in which the private sector, engaged by local authorities, has distinguished itself. Clearly, it is not a matter which local authorities are uniquely unable to deal with.
	There has been much reference, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to the inter-relationship of housing provision with the Children Act 1989. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would come back to the House on that issue before the Bill finishes its passage here. I hope that I can press him to come back early enough for us to use the Bill in order to right any problem which appears to need to be righted by legislation. Furthermore, I suspect that the local authorities in question, whatever one might think of the effect of their decisions and the court cases, acted as they did because of the pressure on their housing stock. We must not forget that.
	Last weekend, the Observer followed up the reports on the problem with reports on runaway children, too many of whom are running away from violence and abuse and need help. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to 16 and 17 year-olds but children leaving care comprise another category which must concern us. Listening to a debate in your Lordships' House two or three weeks ago about the educational needs of children in care made me realise that their lack of educational attainment must be part of a wider need. Finally, as regards young offenders, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, if we mean anything by "prevention" we must have regard to that group.
	The debate has covered inconsistencies in allocations and the differences in approach to "unacceptable behaviour". We shall return to the details of the circumstances and the use by different authorities of their assessment of behaviour. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the revolving door and we must try to shut it with people on the right side of it. I remember that the variable standards of advice and assistance was also an issue for debate five years ago.
	The Bill is endorsed, as it must be, with the usual ministerial statement that under the Human Rights Act it is,
	"compatible with convention rights".
	It is clear that the view that a decent home is a basic human right is shared throughout the House. We welcome the Bill at last. I say "at last" because those of us who sat through the legislation in 1996 heard a good deal about how after the election in 1997 things would be put right. I am pleased that now that is the case. We shall work to ensure that the Bill better meets the human rights of all our citizens. And because the subject stirs our passions, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, we shall use our heads and our hearts to get it right.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, on his maiden speech. We, too, welcome the Bill and we welcome its emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. I want to touch on a few issues which were raised today and follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, in examining some of the underlying causes. They range from a lack of available housing to unemployment, to touch on only two.
	I shall begin with housing benefit, a subject raised by a number of noble Lords. It needs reviewing as regards the minimum standard of its administration. We all know that practices vary from local authority to local authority, so perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether he is satisfied that the Government are successfully monitoring the delivery of the service relating to housing benefit. We would all agree that faster decisions are needed.
	What do the Government propose to do about local authorities that appear unable to make satisfactory progress? It has been suggested that housing benefit should be brought under the remit of the Benefits Agency in order to get it right. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned that the private sector has been involved but decisions taken with regard to housing benefit also relate to the availability of houses and accommodation in the area. Faster and better decisions would also encourage private landlords to make more housing available.
	A number of factors influence the amount of housing. There has been almost a chaotic situation in relation to adjudications in asylum cases, with large numbers of people coming here, and the need to deal with the backlog has made life difficult. The more asylum seekers there are in this country the less social accommodation is available. I am always concerned about the lack of progress by the Home Office in asylum adjudications. The more bogus asylum seekers there are in this country clogging up the system the more difficult it is to deal with genuine refugees who need accommodation. It is extraordinary that often families arrive in this country having passed through six or seven so-called safe states in the European Union. They are determined to come to this country rather than stop in those so-called safe countries on the way.
	Another issue concerns offenders who are released into the community. Should they register for housing where they have previously lived or, for example, where they have just been released? Can one imagine the situation if all those released from prison on the Isle of Wight registered for housing there? That would place a strain on the system in that area. There are concerns about offenders who come back into the community and jump the gun. Can the Minister confirm that that will be dealt with by regulations? There is a separate problem for those in social housing who want to move. It is quite difficult to move from one area of the country to another.
	Another issue that presents difficulties for local authorities is provision for the mentally ill. We are concerned that some of those who are mentally ill have been turfed out onto the street, often because of overcrowding in mental health institutions. The charge has been made that care in the community has aggravated the problem. I believe that care in the community worked in principle but it should not have meant that local authorities cut investment so that people were put on the street when perhaps they should not be there. We are all disappointed about this ongoing issue. I hope that the Government will address that factor which also affects homelessness. This has always been our concern. The Government must be disappointed that the health service in this country has not made the improvements that they have promised over the past five years.
	Young people are a particularly vulnerable group. We should like to know where they are on the list of priorities. It is extremely important to have a policy to deal with those who are subject to community orders or are involved with the Probation Service so that that service and the police liaise with local authorities. Often young people's involvement with drugs has encouraged the kind of behaviour that has led them to become homeless. Concerns were raised about the Children Act. We shall deal with those matters in Committee.
	One of the major factors in homelessness is the lack of available houses, built or repaired, or buildings that can be converted. I recall that about 10 years ago I asked an official in the Department of the Environment what was the first principle in planning. He replied with a completely straight face that it should be simple and easy. After that I never had much faith in the planning process. Sadly, the process is not simple and has never been easy; it is complicated and expensive. The Government must have a policy to encourage the development of brownfield sites. I am aware that the Government have tried to do that, but there must be more houses in places where they are needed and also different kinds of accommodation. One would have thought that, with mortgage rates as low as they are, it should be possible to encourage much greater building in the private sector.
	There are far too many empty houses in public and private ownership. The figures have been referred to this afternoon. We believe that there should be incentives for investment in run-down areas. There should also be increased incentives for private landlords. One is always surprised when one visits various towns in the country and sees whole streets boarded up, yet the houses themselves are in quite good condition. They do not require rebuilding to bring them back into the system but repairs. Often there have been terrible social problems in the area, but it should be possible to do that. I am aware that the Government have tried to involve housing associations. I hope that they will do more because housing associations have been very successful in this area. Mention has been made of the right to buy. I believe that that should be further encouraged because it frees up money which councils can then use to invest in new housing projects.
	I am afraid that not all the steps taken by the Government over the past few years have improved the situation. The change in mortgage tax relief and discounts on the right to buy council houses has not helped; nor has the increase in the rate of stamp duty. The Government should also do more to encourage the building of houses for multiple occupation which help to provide very low-cost accommodation. I hope that the Minister will look into that.
	We have much to deal with in Committee. I cannot emphasise more strongly that it is extremely important for your Lordships to see the draft guidance—so many of the issues are dealt with in that guidance—before they deal with those matters in Committee. If we are to look at the Bill carefully we must do that. We need to keep families out of bed and breakfast accommodation. As the noble Baroness said, that is a very expensive way to house families. There are not enough homes in London and the South East where people want to live and we must deal with that.
	In conclusion, the Minister could himself make a huge difference to the problem this afternoon. All he needs to do is to announce the demolition of that dreadful building the Dome and its conversion into affordable housing.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I begin by referring to the exceptional maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, in what has been an exceptional debate— exceptional because of the passion that has been evident and the information that has been supplied to the House. But the noble Lord's speech stood out from all others as being both informed and run through with passion for the particular subject. It is plain from his speech that he will make a major contribution to the deliberations of this House, not I suspect just on homelessness—although plainly he will do so in that area—but on a whole range of other issues. I am sure we all agree that it was an incredibly impressive maiden speech.
	As far as concerns the debate as a whole, I adopt what has been said by noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. He said that all speakers when referring to housing and seeking to come to a practical solution spoke from the heart. We have a role to talk but also to try to promote some "doing" in relation to it. I extend that tribute specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on the Opposition Benches. I welcome her to her place in relation to this debate. She made some specific points in relation to the Bill, with which I shall deal in my reply. I detected a practical understanding of the problem from her time as leader of a significant local authority in this city and an appreciation that something needed to be done about it. Her speech started with reference to the increasing number of people in unsuitable accommodation. She specifically and rightly referred to the fact that the number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation had increased to 11,000 by the last quarter; that the cost was phenomenal; and that increasing the priority needs—to which she did not object—will increase the pressure. I think that the speech of the noble Baroness showed a real understanding of the problem and a real desire to do something about it.
	Perhaps I may deal with some of the specific points made by the noble Baroness. She referred to the removal of the housing register. The Bill removes the requirement to have a register but local authorities will still have the power to operate a register if they want to for any of the reasons that she indicated.
	The noble Baroness and a number of other noble Lords emphasised the importance of trying to have both regulations and guidance available to the House before the Bill completes its passage. Perhaps I may quickly set out the position in relation to that. The draft priority needs order, which is made under Section 189(2) of the Housing Act, has already been published and consulted on. We are now considering responses. That is already available.
	The draft code of guidance on allocations and homelessness is in preparation. The part on allocations is to be sent out for consultation before the end of this year. The part on homelessness will be sent out early next year for consultation.
	A copy of the draft code of guidance on reviews and strategies is available in the Library of the House and in the Library of another place. It will go out for consultation before the end of this year. Quite a number of the documents for which the noble Baroness asked are already available in draft. They are not all available. I shall write to the noble Baroness in relation to any that I have missed.
	The noble Baroness referred, as did a number of other noble Lords, to the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. That was an important commitment made in the Government's last manifesto and also in the 1997 one. Noble Lords will know better than I that licensing will require primary legislation. So far we have not been able to obtain time for that primary legislation. We accept all the arguments advanced in favour of it. It is simply a question of finding time. Noble Lords will know better than I the pressures on legislative time at the moment.
	The noble Baroness referred to the requirement for a homelessness strategy that would connect in with other strategies relating to housing. I entirely agree with that. In many cases it would be sensible for local authorities to have a strategy that deals with homelessness and other housing issues. She raised the issue of what will happen to the Rough Sleepers Unit. It still has to reach its target by April 2002. But it is perfectly plain that that what the Rough Sleepers Unit has achieved so far is immensely impressive. We need to make sure that what it achieves is consolidated; that we do not have another cohort of rough sleepers moving on to the streets; and we must also check that it continues with preventive measures. We shall be considering the next stages in the near future.
	The noble Baroness raised the issue of improvements in housing benefit. Housing benefit is a real issue. We all agree with that. What has been done in relation to housing benefit? The priority of the Department for Work and Pensions is to work with local authorities to drive up standards of service, tackle fraud and error and promote work incentives. A help team was established in March. It has visited a large number of local authorities to help with their particular problems. The administration subsidy for housing benefit has gone up and up. By 2003-04 it will have increased cumulatively by £24 million.
	The three-year settlement process in spending reviews helps local authorities to plan how to deal with housing benefits in the long-term. The Department for Work and Pensions is developing a new performance framework for the future. It is a set of consistent national standards which will, for the first time, provide a clear basis for assessing local authority performance. That is an important issue. It takes time. But we have introduced as many measures as we possibly can to make progress in what is one of the great problems in the system—that is, making sure that housing benefit is better administered.
	I turn to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I was grateful for her support on the Bill. She congratulated us on our speed in bringing it forward since the general election. I thank the noble Baroness for that. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, having given us that congratulation, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, then took it away by saying how slow we were to produce it. Anyway, we have it now. Let us get on and make it as good as possible.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the question of preventing people from being considered for accommodation who were deemed ineligible from the start because of their bad behaviour. That is an important issue. We take the view that, subject to appropriate safeguards, certain households in which there has been persistent misconduct in the past and where there has been no reform should become ineligible for consideration. That will happen only in very serious cases. However, we believe that there are such serious cases.
	The noble Baroness next raised the question of accommodation for those whose rejection for housing is being reviewed by the local authority. The problem is that if one allows the county court to review whether or not accommodation should be provided while the review is going on, one in effect removes the local authority's discretion. That is what we are concerned about. Obviously the local authority's discretion has to play a part in the allocation of short housing. It must make judgments about that. In the area we are talking about it is dealing with people whom it has decided to reject. The question is whether the county court should then interfere with the exercise of its discretion as to whether it should provide housing while a review of that rejection continues. Quintessentially that is a matter for the local authority's discretion. It has quite difficult choices to make in those circumstances.
	The question of a reasonable time within which to consider whether or not to accept offers of accommodation was then raised by the noble Baroness. That will depend on the circumstances. Sometimes when a good many offers have been made it is reasonable for it to be a short period of time. On other occasions, when a long pause has gone by before an offer is made, it may be more sensible to give a longer time. It will depend on the circumstances in a particular case. The noble Baroness said that she would welcome an opportunity to discuss that and other issues before the Committee stage. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that and a whole number of other issues.
	Along with a number of other noble Lords, the noble Baroness raised the question of the Children Act 1989. Basically, the question was: is it true that social services departments or housing authorities are now more willing or feel more able legally to separate children from their parents when dealing with the issue of homelessness? It is said that there are two court cases which have made it easier for local authorities to do that. They are acting on the basis of those court cases. It is a point that has been picked up by Shelter and raised with myself and the Department of Health. We are being told that those two court cases do not effect any change in the law. What we need to look at is whether there is any change in practice. We are in the process of investigating that. I give no assurance as to what I shall come back with, except that I assure your Lordships that we shall look to see what the practice is. I shall report back to the House before it is too late for something to be done. It is a difficult issue. We should be careful not to change the law unless there is a proper basis for it.
	The noble Baroness also referred to domestic violence. She was keen to ensure that any regulations dovetail with the Bill. I entirely agree with that. She also referred to the Supporting People proposals and said that it is important that they be effective and properly funded. The purpose of Supporting People is to provide a unified funding stream for the supporting of vulnerable people by local—

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. What concerns me about the Supporting People programme is the various rumours we hear about not being able to accept the total amount of money that is needed for it. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that there will be enough money. That is the big fear of all the people involved in making that work. As other noble Lords have said, the programme is absolutely crucial for keeping homeless people in their tenancies once they are found for them.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I understand totally the importance of the Supporting People programme over the long term. The funding streams that Supporting People will bring together will deal with many of the categories covered in our debate today. Recently we published a consultation paper setting out how the sums are to be calculated. The best way forward for those with particular concerns is to respond to that detailed consultation which sets out with some degree of precision how we intend to calculate the amounts for the funding stream.
	The noble Baroness also referred to the publication of the national homelessness strategy. I cannot guarantee that it will be ready by December, but if we produce a Bill that puts a duty on local authorities to produce their own homelessness strategies, then it is incumbent on central government to set out with some degree of precision what they intend to do in this area.
	Perhaps I may turn to the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. He set out the reasons underlying homelessness and expressed his support for a strategic approach by local authorities and central government. We endorse that with enthusiasm. He raised a fear that housing policy has been a Cinderella service in social provision. All noble Lords who have participated in the debate are well aware of the importance of housing. Although it must be considered in conjunction with the provision of other services—health, education and community services—it is an immensely important element when dealing with people who have a range of problems.
	The right reverend Prelate also raised concerns about the provisions in Clause 13 covering unacceptable behaviour. I dealt with that point in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. However, plainly this is a matter that will need to be discussed in Committee. I thank the right reverend Prelate for what he described as his warm welcome to the Bill and his good wishes for its success. He described it as "good news for vulnerable people". That is absolutely right.
	I have already referred to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Fearn. It was truly excellent. Perhaps I may pick up on one point that he made. The noble Lord said that resolving the problems of homelessness will not happen unless more resources, including the best people to solve young people's housing needs, are provided. When addressing the problems of homelessness, resources will always be an issue. Sometimes it is said that the Government do not provide sufficient resources; at other times congratulations are offered. However, the Bill before the House today seeks to provide a structure within which the problems of homelessness can be addressed. Of course I agree that as many resources as are reasonably practicable should be made available, but here we aim to set out a structure to tackle homelessness, which will be with us for some time to come and which, as several noble Lords have rightly pointed out, is likely to rise in terms of cases accepted by local authorities because of the widening of priority needs. I take note of the noble Lord's comments as regards resources, but in the meantime the Bill sets out the structure for dealing with the problems.
	My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen quoted a report produced by Shelter:
	"This Bill, if implemented, offers the best opportunity in a generation"
	to deal with the problems of homelessness. I am grateful to her for that quotation. My noble friend also referred to the problem of children who are separated from their parents by local authorities when carrying out their duties either under the Children Act, in the case of social services authorities, or under homelessness legislation in the case of housing authorities. I have said that we shall consider this matter and seek the right course to address it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Best, brought the debate firmly down to earth by citing a few figures which make it clear that, if estimates of the number of new households being created are correct, a significantly larger number of affordable homes will need to be built in order to meet the problem of homelessness. From those figures, it is quite plain that homelessness is going to be with us for some considerable time to come. For that reason, it is necessary to ensure that the safety net works well and that all those involved in providing that safety net play their appropriate part.
	As regards the issue of affordable housing, we have increased significantly the funding being allocated for new affordable housing investment through the Housing Corporation. That funding will rise to over £1.2 billion in 2003-04, which is almost double the current level. Some 10,000 key workers in high demand areas will be helped to purchase a home through the Starter Homes Initiative. Total capital allocations for local authority housing are being increased from £1.2 billion last year to £2.5 billion by 2003-04. Those are significant increases but, to be frank, they do not reach the level of housing starts referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Nevertheless, it marks an important start to addressing the issue. Because of the inevitable gap between the number of new houses being built and the number of people who require them, the need for the housing safety net to function effectively is extremely important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to the position of young offenders. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall include in guidance the point that youth offending teams should be included among the consultees regarding homelessness strategies. We shall consider in guidance whether those young offenders who need to move to avoid hardship will fall into the "reasonable preference" category for the allocation of housing. "Reasonable preference" does not equate with "vulnerable" and thus would not reflect the same priority for allocation, a point which I explained in my opening remarks.
	The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was moving and impressive. He described the lot of those who live in poor quality, temporary accommodation and referred in particular to two families in a way that brings us down to earth as regards what we are trying to achieve by way of improving the relevant legislation. He also described a conversation with someone living in that kind of accommodation. That person had never experienced happiness in his life, which serves to underline the importance of ensuring that decent long-term housing is provided.
	The noble Earl also drew attention to the Rough Sleepers Unit, and in particular to the work of Louise Casey. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that the achievements of the unit are very impressive. Their hard work serves to illustrate that, in dealing with that particular kind of homelessness—as well as homelessness in general—we must roll up our sleeves and get on with doing the job, as well as persuading all the relevant players to co-operate in providing solutions to the problem. He also cited the article in the Observer and the question of whether children would now more easily be separated from their parents. He said that:
	"Sometimes it appears that in this country we are not very good at valuing our children".
	That is a sentiment which we should all consider when dealing with homelessness. He also referred to the issue of houses in multiple occupation. I believe that, in responding to the points put by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I have already reiterated our commitment to dealing with it, subject to legislative time being available.
	My noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh drew attention to the problems faced by vulnerable groups. She mentioned in particular the poor administration of housing benefit, a point I believe I have already dealt with. My noble friend also referred to the problems surrounding the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation, a matter raised at the start of our debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It is a very expensive system and it must be possible to find better ways of dealing with homeless families. Bed and breakfast costs a great deal and I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that such provision has an extremely detrimental effect on families. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out, bed and breakfast accommodation then leads to hugely increased costs in other areas. My predecessor in the post of Minister for Housing, Mr Nick Raynsford, established the Bed and Breakfast Unit, which is now in operation. It is looking urgently at ways in which the problem can be addressed. My noble friend also commented that the statutory framework we are putting in place may provide a good opportunity to deal with homelessness. I am grateful for her remarks.
	My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden asked about the position as regards single-sex couples; whether they are suffering from an anomaly. On the basis of the briefing material before me, I am not in a position to deal with that particular point. I intend to write to my noble friend and respond to her comments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, speaking from the Cross Benches, dealt eloquently with the cost of poor housing. I do not have to hand the up-to-date figures for the 1996 report from the RICS, to which the noble Lord referred. I shall seek to gather together those figures and write to the noble Lord. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that a huge cost is borne in that respect. The more effectively we can deal with the issues of homelessness, the more we shall reduce that cost.
	The noble Lord drew attention to the Observer article covering the separation of families by local authorities and also pointed out that it is not only a question of housing but also of offering support to young people. The noble Lord drew attention to the Connexions service, which is seeking to give that support. We are very conscious of the fact that we need to provide support to prevent, for example, tenancy breakdown, which frequently occurs with young people who have been on the streets for long periods before they are put into tenancies.
	Dealing with homelessness is a fundamental challenge, not only in relation to the provision of more affordable homes but in preventing people with social problems from ending up homeless. It may help such people to stay in tenancies if we provide them with more support. I undertake to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and inform him of the "village hall" experience. Perhaps that will inform his approach in relation to the active communities.
	I should say to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton that I do not want the Bill to be called the "Domelessness Bill"; I am more than happy for it to be called the "Homelessness Bill". I agree that every contributor has spoken from the heart. My noble friend spoke impressively about the fact that people who are homeless are people in anguish; that they are people who need help. He described how, when he was an MP, people came to his surgery and brought their children with them because otherwise they would not have been able to speak to their MP. Like my noble friend, I hope that the Bill will make a real difference to the plight of homeless people.
	My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the right to buy. We are sticking with a right-to-buy policy, and the problems of homelessness have to be looked at within that landscape. Yes, of course we would like to build more houses. As I said, we have made more money available than in 1997 and 1998, but it will take a long time to reach a point where the numbers are high enough.
	My noble friend referred also to co-operative solutions. I agree that they are well worth looking at. Indeed, shared ownership can make a real impact on the homelessness problem. As to a system of "pepper-potting", which was used by my noble friend's council in Enfield, he is right to say that that is somewhat out of fashion at the moment and is said to lead to problems. However, I agree that we need to address the problem of what kind of accommodation local councils should provide to deal with those who are temporarily homeless. Is it right that bed and breakfast is used so often, or would it be better if there were more properties—for example, in the private rental sector—which could be used to house the homeless?
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, underlined the importance of—she did not like the word—"joined-up" services. We agree that there is a need for joined-up services, not only between local authorities, particularly in London, to ensure that they work together to help the homeless, but between central government, local government and the statutory services in providing help for those who are homeless.
	The noble Baroness referred to the 26,000 possession orders that have been made. There is a problem in breaking down the causes of possession orders. We are in discussion at the moment with the Lord Chancellor's Department, which deals with the courts, in an attempt to get under the headline figures and to see whether or not we can break down what causes people to have possession orders made against them, and what more we can do to help them.
	The noble Baroness also referred to the issue of young offenders. I believe that she supported the Government's proposition that the more you help young offenders to settle into a home the less likely they are to reoffend.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised a number of issues, but he broadly welcomed the Bill. He spoke about the issues of lack of affordable housing and housing benefits, to which I have already referred. He referred to asylum seekers making the problem more difficult. Your Lordships will know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place has made an announcement about reforms for dealing with asylum seekers once they are here. We agree that the quicker one is able to deal with claims, the better it will be for the genuine asylum seekers.
	The noble Viscount raised the question of where offenders register. They register where they have a local connection. People do not establish a local connection in an area by reason of being placed in prison there; they register where they have a local connection. He also raised the issue of "jumping the gun", by which I think he meant going up the housing ladder. As I said in opening, we believe that they should be treated as a priority need as homeless people. That does not mean that they are entitled to permanent housing quicker than other people—for example, families who have been waiting for some considerable time.
	The noble Viscount raised the issue of the mentally ill. Those who are vulnerable by reason of mental illness are already a priority need group under existing legislation. As to young people, it is proposed that the priority needs order should be extended to include all 16 and 17 year-olds, all 18 to 21 year-olds who come out of care or the Armed Forces, or who are young offenders.
	It has been an excellent debate. Every noble Lord has contributed from the heart and from a desire to make a difference. I very much look forward to the Committee and Report stages, where I hope we will all agree and try to make it a better Bill.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Communities (Finance) Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the new own resources decision amending the arrangements for financing the Community budget. This decision reflects the conclusions of the Berlin European Council of March 1999 and was signed by the Council of Ministers in September 2000. All member states are now required to ratify this decision, in line with their respective constitutional requirements, by 31st December 2001.
	The own resources decision sets out the system for financing the budget of the European communities, the own resources system. This system allows for four types of own resources; first, customs duties, including those on agricultural products, secondly, sugar levies—these two elements are known as traditional own resources—thirdly, VAT-based contributions, and, fourthly, gross national product-based contributions.
	Each own resources decision runs for a set period. The current one, agreed in 1994, came into effect on 1st January 1995, and the one we are considering today is due to come into effect from 1st January 2002, with some retrospection to 1st January 2001 for changes relating to traditional own resources collection costs.
	The Berlin summit delivered an excellent outcome for the United Kingdom, meeting our key objectives of bringing European Union spending under control and retaining the own resources ceiling at its previous level.
	Bringing EU spending under control was a major achievement for the Berlin summit. The previous agreements on EU spending, in 1988 and 1994, allowed for real increases of 17 per cent and 22 per cent over the respective planning periods. The Berlin agreement will stabilise spending through the EU budget and, for the first time, spending in the existing member states will be lower in real terms at the end of a financial perspective—the planning period setting ceilings on EU expenditure—than it was at the beginning. By stabilising overall expenditure as a proportion of GNP over the financial perspective, the agreement paves the way for a successful enlargement.
	The Berlin deal also maintained the UK's abatement in full, and maintained the maximum amount of EU expenditure—the overall ceiling for Community Own Resources—at a constant 1.27 per cent of EU gross national product, ensuring strict budget discipline and control of EU spending. UK contributions will not increase as a result of the new own resources decision.
	Other changes agreed at Berlin have a neutral financial effect on the United Kingdom. Overall, the new own resources decision is a very good outcome for the UK, leading to no increase in our contributions and keeping the abatement—not a euro more, not a euro less.
	The other elements of the Berlin conclusions are also advantageous to the United Kingdom. The tight controls on common agricultural policy spending which we negotiated will mean a fall in the price of cereals, beef and milk, bringing benefits of £1 billion a year in Britain—about £70 per year for the average family of four.
	Berlin also secured reforms of the EU's structural and cohesion funds, which streamlined the categorisation of funds and which maintains a level of funding for UK regions amounting to £10 billion over the period 2000-06. These funds are addressing structural difficulties in qualifying regions, assisting economic development and promoting skills throughout the UK.
	Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the new own resources decision to be added to the list of Community treaties in Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. This addition will allow payments made by the United Kingdom pursuant to the decision to be charged directly to the Consolidated Fund under Section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972.
	Clause 2 simply cites this Act as the European Communities (Finance) Act 2001 and repeals the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995, which it supersedes.
	The new own resources decision itself is little changed from the 1994 own resources decision. Any changes made to the decision are financially neutral for the UK. Our net contribution to the EU budget will not change as a result of what we are considering today.
	As well as maintaining the ceiling for own resources at 1.27 per cent of EU GNP, the main changes to the decision—which are rather technical in nature—are as follows. They allow for an increase in the amount that each member state can retain against the cost of collecting the traditional own resources. This amount was increased from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. They allow for a staged reduction in the maximum call-up rate of the VAT based resource from the current 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent in 2004. They simplify the steps needed to calculate the United Kingdom's abatement—removing unnecessary and redundant calculations—but as the recitals to the own resources decision make clear,
	"this simplification has no impact on the determination of the amount of this correction [the abatement] granted to the United Kingdom".
	They adjust other member states' shares of the financing of the UK's abatement in order to meet the concerns of Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, with no effect on the UK.
	In line with previous precedent, the own resources decision also reflects the UK's agreement to forego "windfall" gains arising from the changes to the financing of the EU budget and from a change in the treatment of pre-accession aid which will occur on enlargement. We achieved a position that was, as I have quoted the Prime Minister as saying,
	"not a euro more, not a euro less",
	and ensured that amounts currently abated will remain abated under the new decision.
	The Berlin European Council was an important step forward for the European Community and for the United Kingdom. It makes several important reforms, preparing the EU for the challenges of enlargement, securing no increase in the own resources ceiling, and bringing EU spending under control.
	These decisions are vital for the future of Europe, and for Britain as well. Half of the UK's total trade—£132 billion—is with Europe, with 3 million jobs in three-quarters of a million companies affected by that trade. Getting the economic future of Europe right matters for Britain: it is in our interests to see Europe extend its single market, from the 375 million people it includes today, to the nearly 500 million it could include in future. It is in Britain's interests for Europe to make the economic reforms needed if the single market is to expand. So it is right that Britain is one of the leaders of reform in Europe and in the ongoing debate on Europe's future.
	Enlargement is the greatest challenge that the EU will face over the coming years. It will bring great economic benefits to eastern Europe, providing an opportunity for growth, development and prosperity. EU membership will help to raise standards of living and spread education and employment opportunities for people in the east.
	Expanding the single market will also benefit the west. It will mean increased trade, cheaper inputs, improved access to a larger labour market, greater economies of scale, and more productive investment. As the Prime Minister said in Warsaw,
	"Enlargement to the East may be the EU's greatest challenge, but I believe it is its greatest opportunity".
	The Berlin summit saw the most radical reform of the common agricultural policy since it was created. We achieved significant price cuts for cereals, beef and milk, bringing cereal prices closer to world levels and lower prices for consumers. Although we should like to see these cuts go further, they are still a significant victory for the United Kingdom. They will see spending on the common agricultural policy declining in real terms from 2002.
	The summit also introduced the CAP's "second pillar". This increased focus on rural development is a significant and welcome advance. It moves the CAP away from production-based subsidies and towards support for agri-environment and rural development schemes, removing some of the anomalies of the traditional CAP mechanism.
	The Berlin conclusions are not only good for Britain; they are also an important part of the ongoing process of reform in Europe—a process that the UK is leading.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the common agricultural policy and to enlargement. I strongly support the idea of enlargement. Is it government policy to proceed with enlargement even without the major changes in the common agricultural policy that are clearly necessary?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lord, the major thrust of what I have been saying is that many of the changes in the common agricultural policy will take place in the period between 2002 and 2006. As I said, we should like some of them to go further, but these changes have been agreed by the 15 existing members of the European Union, and, as the noble Lord rightly said, there are essential pre-conditions for enlargement.
	At Lisbon, Europe's governments signed up to economic reforms to enhance labour market flexibility and capital and product market modernisation and reform, bringing more open markets and greater competition. At Stockholm the EU pressed ahead with measures to meet the strategic goal: to raise the EU's productivity and employment performance beyond the best in the world by 2010. These measures will complement this Government's domestic efforts to raise Britain's productivity, and we shall continue to support this reform agenda: completing the single market in utilities, energy, telecoms and financial and professional services. And a reformed Europe must be outward looking rather than inward looking—actively pursuing multilateral trade liberalisation and closer transatlantic trading links, through the launch of a new world trade round.
	The Government fully support Neil Kinnock's reform programme which will modernise the administration of the Commission. We are also working to reform the institutions and administration of Europe, most recently through the establishment of the new European Anti-Fraud Office, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with independent powers to seek out and investigate fraud against the EU budget resources system.
	The Berlin conclusions are an important step in the ongoing process of reform in Europe. They show that by taking a leading role in reform, and by working together with other member states, we can achieve outcomes which are good for the United Kingdom and good for the European Union. This Bill, ratifying the deal agreed at Berlin, will mean stronger controls on EU spending, the beginnings of a more effective agricultural policy, and no increase in the own resources ceiling. The agreement is good for the United Kingdom, and it is an important step for the European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Newby: My Lords, this is a modest Bill, dealing with a modest set of decisions taken at the Berlin summit.
	As regards the narrow question of the composition of own resources, we welcome a move to an increasingly GNP-based system. Moving away from VAT and customs payments introduces a fairer system, one that is more transparent and less susceptible to fraud.
	One of the most striking aspects of the EU budget is the modesty of its size and scope compared to that of the nation states that make up the European Union. We are talking about a budget which has a ceiling of 1.27 per cent of GDP, compared to public expenditure within the UK which is within a percentage or two of 40 per cent of GDP. So, in the context of overall government expenditure, we are talking about a relatively modest amount.
	I refer to the other matter which I consider striking with regard to the nature of the EU budget. Despite the fact that it relates to a market which is subject to cyclical variations and however much the market may collapse and recessions occur when we might wish to spend more on structural funds, for example, we have in effect a cash limit set for five years ahead. So, what we are dealing with here—perhaps I say this in part to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who gets a little worried about the powers of the EU—is a modest budget and one which operates in a very different way to that of a nation state and a budget which, for all the Government's trumpeting of the changes at Berlin, is susceptible to staying as it was. As regards the expenditure side, over the period 2000-06 there is virtually no change at all either in the levels of expenditure for the EU or, indeed, in how that expenditure is divided up.
	Much has been made of reforms to the CAP and they are welcome but they are exceptionally modest. To hear the Minister speak, one would think that the CAP expenditure was going to suffer a major fall. In fact, whereas in 2001 CAP expenditure accounted for 45.5 per cent of the overall budget, even after the reforms, in 2006 it will account for 45.8 per cent. Therefore, there may have been some changes and we may find that some goods are now slightly cheaper but overall the place of the CAP within the EU budget has not been substantially affected by the Berlin decisions.
	We on these Benches believe that much more radical reforms are needed. In saying that I accept that it is difficult in terms of practical politics to make reforms at all. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has already referred to the question of enlargement and how the EU budget will cope with that and the whole question of the CAP. It is not just in the context of enlargement that we need to look carefully at the composition of the CAP and the whole question of production and export subsidies, but we must also look extremely carefully at the implications of the operation of the CAP on the discussions in Doha.
	If there is one single area where the developing world feels that it is being short-changed by the EU it is in terms of its failure to compete when exporting to the EU due to the CAP. The developing world's domestic agricultural sectors often suffer through the operation of CAP export subsidies. That situation clearly requires much further change and before enlargement can take place that change will have to be implemented. At the moment the UK Government's attitude towards that further change is unclear.
	In terms of the broad span of Community activity, another criticism that we on these Benches have is that there is a tendency for the EU to adopt a proliferation of initiatives under which a small pot of money is allocated to a big issue, huge amounts of paper are created but we simply do not see any substantial follow through. On a whole raft of issues there is a question mark over whether the principle of subsidiarity is in operation and whether the EU is not attempting to do too much not very well rather than a relatively limited range of things extremely well.
	That brings me to the question of fraud and mismanagement which the Minister raised. We were, of course, extremely pleased that Neil Kinnock had a reform agenda. We had hoped that that would lead to substantial and relatively speedy change. I think it is fair to say that we, along with him and his team, feel disappointed at the pace of change. The recent report of the Court of Auditors which showed fraud and mismanagement amounting to £2.5 billion—some 5 per cent of the EU budget—is another episode in a catalogue of examples of mismanagement at EU level. As noble Lords are well aware, what we are seeing is expenditure being either fraudulently applied or mismanaged across a raft of areas, certainly across the structural funds, the aid budget and the CAP. It was extremely instructive to hear the comments last week of John Wiggins, the British representative to the Court of Auditors. He pointed out that the problem is not on the whole that of individuals putting European money wrongly in their pockets but of national and regional administrations helping themselves to European money when they are not entitled to it.
	Therefore, the onus is very much on the Government and on governments of the EU at national and regional level to look to themselves to put right what is one of the major criticisms—and correctly so—of the way the EU is currently run. There is a whole raft of audit controls currently in the process of being implemented but we are told that they will not produce results until 2003. One can only hope that we do not see another £2.5 billion worth of fraud next year and in 2003.
	This is a modest measure. We in this House have no option but to approve it, but we shall certainly look for much more fundamental reform when we discuss its successor in a few years' time.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, looking at the list of speakers for the Second Reading debate I wonder whether we have achieved a record low for the number of speakers during the passage of a Bill through your Lordships' House. That may be due to the quality of the three Front Bench spokesmen. However, I prefer to think that it may be due to the fact that the Government, while explaining that they want a more democratic House of Lords, have shown in their proposals for reform of your Lordships' House that they plan not to increase the powers of a more democratic House but, certainly in the area to which the Bill refers—finance—to reduce them.
	In accepting a total absence of scrutiny of the Bill in your Lordships' House the Government hide behind a power granted to them by a statute nearly 100 years old; namely, the Parliament Act 1911. Is it not time, while your Lordships' House examines the future of the House, that we consider demonetising money Bills, so allowing the expertise on all sides of your Lordships' House to be brought to bear on the scrutiny of the nation's finances, as it is on all other aspects of our public life?
	Turning to the Bill, we on these Benches welcome European enlargement, and the Berlin agreement is, to our mind, in itself not unreasonable. Nevertheless it is important to remember that what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, describes as a modest little Bill—which deals only with 1 per cent of GDP, as opposed to 40 per cent of GDP on public spending and so on—will effectively give our approval to all of last September's EU Council decisions, including those important proposals contained in Clause 16 of the EU document. At some point this evening I should be grateful for an explanation of the Minister's understanding of what Clause 16 is all about. My understanding is that it does not empower the levying of new European taxes but it seems to invite proposals to do so and to review the British abatement. Does he agree that the existence of the clause puts down a marker for things to come? I shall return to that in a moment.
	This Bill, although short, has some rather obscure possible meanings. For example, taking the simple question of who pays whom, the Minister said that the UK contribution will not increase. I believe he said that we would keep our abatement and that our net contribution would not change, all of which may be true. However, in our debate last week on the Barnett formula, he and most noble Lords agreed that the key issue on that funding was not the level of increase but the absolute level—it was called the baseline—to which amounts are added or subtracted. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to that area for a moment.
	When we talk about the amount that this country contributes to or receives from the European Union it seems extraordinarily difficult to arrive at an agreed figure. Estimates vary greatly. It is important to distinguish between the gross contribution and the net contribution that the United Kingdom makes to the European Union budget. One calculation shows that this country sends £1.2 million every hour to the European Union. From that the Minister, being the statistician that he is, will quickly deduce that the sum sent each day is £29 million and that, therefore, more than £200 million per week goes from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union.
	I stress the words "from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union" because the Government do not have any money of their own. We are talking about British taxpayers and their net contribution appears to be more than £3 billion a year. Will the Minister confirm that figure?
	Another example concerns the use of GNP figures in the document. About which GNP figures are we talking? Are we talking about the official figures or, as in compliance with the Maastricht Treaty, GNP figures in which an allowance is made for the size of the black economies, which differ greatly among member states? The figures used make a material difference to the calculations.
	How does the Minister respond to the comparison of the absolute level of the United Kingdom and France? France's gross contribution has been £9.2 billion versus our contribution of £7.3 billion. But refunds to France amount to £8.5 billion versus £3.8 billion to us. The net effect is that France pays £750 million compared with the United Kingdom's £3.2 billion. Why is that when the French economy is broadly comparable in size to that of Britain? Will the Minister justify the difference for us?
	Up until this point I have at least been talking about gross or net contributions which governments might or might not agree to make in their own national parliaments. However, is the Minister aware that the Belgian Prime Minister recently outlined a route for bypassing altogether the problems of national parliaments? He recently called for a direct European Union tax to pay for the European Union. He thinks that this tax should be levied directly on all European Union citizens. He is backed by the Belgian Finance Minister and by the German Finance Minister who argued for a European Union-wide tax on 14th June this year. Is it good enough for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place to say that,
	"any change to the tax regime in Europe is a matter for unanimity ... we do not accept the need to introduce new taxes".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/01; col 143.]?
	If that is so, will the Minister tell us why the Government agreed to the insertion into the Council decision announced in September 2000 of words that certainly do open up at least the prospect of autonomous revenue-raising powers for the European Union? I refer to the Commission communication entitled Tax Policy in the European Union—Priorities in the Year Ahead. It stated that,
	"while it remains the Commission's view that a move to qualified majority voting at least for certain tax issues is indispensable, the legal basis will, for the present, remain unanimity".
	I should be grateful if noble Lords would note the words "for the present". The communication continues:
	"Given the difficulties in reaching unanimous decisions on legislative proposals, which will be compounded by enlargement, the community should also consider the use of alternative instruments".
	What are those ominous-sounding alternative instruments? Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to what the European Commission spokesman said on 31st July of this year. European Union Commissioner Schreyer was asked about any autonomous European Union resources that might be planned. She said:
	"An objective could be to replace the existing financing system of the European Union's budget"—
	that is a system in which our Parliament has a say, as it has today—
	"with one or more European taxes".
	That would be a system in which we in this Parliament would have no say.
	Perhaps we can now see why there have been so few speakers today. Not only are we impotently debating a Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, we cannot amend and have no alternative but to approve, it is also a Bill which will become law tomorrow after about 30 seconds of Committee, Report and Third Reading stages. If the ideas that I have described come true, the whole of the UK Parliament will be in the same position as your Lordships' House is today—bypassed on money matters by directly levied EU taxes.
	There is a widespread and understandable anxiety on the part of many people that we are heading for new direct revenue-raising powers for the European Union. If those new powers flow from the passage of this unscrutinised Bill, it will be, I am sure the Minister will agree, to the great discredit of the Government. The Minister will shortly reassure us that the fears I describe are groundless and that none of this will happen. Many of us fear that it will. I believe that the concerns are genuine. They are frequently expressed. I hope that the Minister will heed them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the care they have taken in responding to the Bill. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it is a modest Bill. It is a Bill which sets out the basis on which contributions not only from this country but also the 14 other member states will apply to the European Union budgets for the next six years. The noble Lord is right to say that 1.27 per cent of GNP is a small figure in comparison with national budgets. Of course that is the case. It demonstrates, as I am sure he will agree, how far we are from the scare talk of a federal Europe which is the characteristic of the Benches immediately opposite—and of only some of those noble Lords, I suspect.
	The noble Lord referred to the common agricultural policy and seemed to suggest that I was saying that somehow expenditure on the common agricultural policy was going to suffer a major fall. That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that although there will be a fall, the major change is the transfer from production subsidies to expenditure on agri-environment and rural development. We would all like to go further. I agree with him on that. I think that all three parties would agree on that. But what has been achieved is significant and worthwhile. I join with his party in saying that we would want more radical reforms.
	On enlargement, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has not stayed for an answer although perhaps he was so satisfied with the immediate answer I gave him that he did not feel it necessary to listen to the rest of the debate. When we consider the proposals for enlargement very strict caps on pre-enlargement expenditure are provided for in the Berlin settlement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to export subsidies. There is indeed provision for export subsidies. But there is no provision for direct aid to farmers in the accession countries to compensate them for any decrease in prices. I think that he would agree that that is a well worthwhile distinction.
	The noble Lord referred to fraud. None of us will be happy about fraud. I am not sure to which report of the Court of Auditors he referred. A Court of Auditors report is being presented tomorrow. I understand that it has been on the website of the Court of Auditors for the past half an hour. That means that I have not had a chance to see it. I do not suppose anyone else has had a chance to do so.

Lord Newby: My Lords, it is amazing how the newspapers get hold of such things.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there have been various leaks, but it is not at all clear, other than what the UK member of the Court of Auditors said, what reliance can be placed on them. I shall not pretend to any noble Lord that the Court of Auditors is satisfied with progress in reducing fraud. It is likely that the Court of Auditors will say that it will make the same qualifications to the accounts that it has made in the past. However, I am sure that it will make the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that a large part of the shortfall is not fraud, as such, but error and mismanagement and particularly over-claiming by national and regional governments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who is fascinated by an earlier settlement of 1911, adheres to his view that we should overturn the 1911 Parliament Act and that this House should retain responsibilities for financial matters equal to that of the House of Commons. Otherwise, I cannot imagine why he is so worried about the lack of scrutiny in this House of a Bill that has been subjected to substantial scrutiny—a long Second Reading debate, lengthy Committee proceedings and subsequent proceedings—in the House of Commons. That is as it should be. He accuses the Government of accepting the lack of scrutiny today as shown by the fact that there are fewer speakers. I would like to have seen more speakers, but I suspect that the lack of speakers reflects not the lack of interest by Members of the House of Lords in financial matters, but their acceptance and approval of the Parliament Act 1911. Long may that continue.
	I welcome the support that was expressed for enlargement. In my response I set out the extent to which the Berlin agreement, and therefore this Bill, provide caps on the preparation for enlargement between now and 2006. I shall not add to what was said about fraud, because I do not believe that that added to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said.
	At first I was puzzled by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to Clause 16 until I worked out that I believe he means Recital 16, which is referred to in Article 9 of the own resources decision. That article simply replaces Article 10 of the 1994 own resources decision and is no different from the article that it replaces. It allows the European Commission to undertake a review of its own resources system and to put forward proposals for modifying that system as necessary. That has been the case for the past six years and no change is proposed in the new own resources decision. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, it remains the case that proposals for modification put forward by the Commission would have to be considered and unanimously agreed by all member states. There is no qualification and he was right.
	The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, went on to talk about UK contributions and the distinction between net and gross contributions. I do not accept that gross contributions are not a worthwhile consideration because the benefit that this country receives from its membership of the European Union is not confined to its receipts from the European Union. It includes our membership of a single market of 375 million people. That is estimated to have increased output across Europe by 1.5 per cent and that alone would more than pay for our net contribution before any of the other benefits are taken into account.
	I remind the noble Lord, as I said earlier, that last year UK exports to the single market were worth £97 billion; that trade with the rest of the UK supports up to 3.5 million British jobs; and the single market brings inward investment into the United Kingdom that created 50,000 jobs last year in the UK alone.
	The noble Lord also asked me to make a distinction between the gross contribution and the net contribution, which I am happy to do. I cannot weed out a column of figures, except to say that taking the years between 1995-96 and 2003-04, at current prices, in the first year the figure was just under £4 billion; in the second year, 1996-97, just over £2 billion; in 1997-98, £2.5 billion; in 1998-99, £4 billion; in 1999-2000, £3.3 billion; and in 2000-01, £4.3 billion. In addition, we forecast for 2001-02, £3.4 billion; for 2002-03, £3.5 billion; and for 2003-04, £3.8 billion. Of course, more figures will be produced at the time of the pre-Budget report.
	The point is that there were substantial increases in European Union expenditure that continued under the Conservative government. They have now been kept under control, and, together with the continuation of the abatement, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, deserves substantial credit, that should dominate the debate.
	The next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, concerned the euro tax. He still appears to believe that because the Belgian Prime Minister and some German politicians want a euro tax, that somehow it is coming closer and closer. Nowhere in the decision that is the subject of this Bill does that appear. Decisions on EU taxation of savings, for example, at the Feira European Council, marked a turning point. The UK did what we have always wanted to do which is to embrace co-operation rather than harmonisation in tax matters. At ECOFIN on 10th July Ministers put forward the idea of a euro tax, but it was not just our Chancellor, but also other finance Ministers who rejected it. As the Chief Secretary said on 3rd July in the debate on this Bill,
	"We do not support such a tax and such matters should be decided by national Parliaments, accountable to national populations for the tax decisions that they make".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/01; col. 167.]
	Putting a gloss on it, but without disagreeing with it, fundamentally that means the elected House.
	I am grateful to noble Lords for the seriousness with which they have treated this matter. Although it is not controversial, that does not mean that it is modest. I believe that this is an important step forward in our relationships with Europe and I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

National Trust

Lord Patten: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the legislation governing the National Trust in England and Wales is in need of modernisation.
	My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to ask this Question about the legislation governing the National Trust, which may seem to some to be in need of some modernisation. Others speaking later in the debate will do so with much greater knowledge and experience than I have. I look forward to their contributions, in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, whose distinguished service to the National Trust began as chairman back in 1975, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whom we welcome back to his place. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who is answering for the Government, will remember, as I do, that in another place when people came back after a break in service they were referred to, somewhat coarsely, as "retreads". We shall have to find a better word for those who come back into the service of your Lordships' House. I look forward very much to what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has to say.
	I come pretty fresh to the subject. I am a friendly outsider, if you will. To raise any questions about that august body, the National Trust, might seem mildly improper, rather like questioning the purposes of his Holiness the Pope—something that one does not quite do. The original purposes of the National Trust are not only entirely proper, but absolutely laudable, and I applaud them. However, the duties and burdens laid down by statute as long ago as 1907 in a body of legislation growing through five Acts of Parliament, last reviewed more than 30 years ago, may be a challenging load because of the scale of the task that faces the modern National Trust.
	The distinguished social theorist, the Anglican canon and the London solicitor who set up the National Trust in late Victorian England and our predecessors in this and another place who passed the statute in Edwardian England could not have foreseen what a landed leviathan it was to become. The National Trust has accumulated holdings that no Whig magnate in our House in the 18th century, even after a couple of bottles of port, could have dreamt of accumulating. It has more than 600,000 acres of land, 575 miles of coastline and nearly 250 monuments and buildings, ranging from great baroque palaces to ex-council houses, I am told. I applaud that and the care and taste that go into those houses. I shall not speak about matters of taste or tenantry, which may interest some in your Lordships' House.
	However, perhaps necessarily, the largest private landowner in England and Wales is largely run from London, though with an army of volunteers to whom I pay tribute. It is unregulated. Some people—not me—say that it is out of touch and remote from time to time. Perhaps that is a matter of the simple scale of the National Trust and how large it is.
	The present scale and organisation of the National Trust seems inconsistent with the modernising agenda of the Government, with which I have some sympathy from time to time—I do not want to alarm the Government Front Bench. Devolution and local accountability are increasingly part not only of regional rhetoric, but of regional reality. So perhaps it is our fault and that of another place that some key issues have not been addressed, and in particular that legislation does not accommodate reasonable demands for a regional or local voice to be heard within the National Trust, whether that voice is of the paid-up member or simply of the interested or disinterested outsider who might be affected in some way, such as a tenant.
	That was to be my theme when I discussed the Question with the usual channels a few weeks ago. However, since this Unstarred Question went down on the Order Paper, I have received, by my modest standards, a veritable snowstorm of correspondence and faxes, not only on the regional deficit to which I have just referred and to which I shall turn more fully later, but on a perceived democratic deficit in the electoral affairs of the National Trust, particularly in the use of what one might term the block vote. Some have represented to me that, because of that block vote, the inner circles of the National Trust are becoming a bit too close to a self-perpetuating oligarchy for comfort. I do not know whether that is true; I simply speak as an interested and sympathetic outsider.
	The disputed system seems to have been a fairly recent invention. It came about only after the report on the constitution of the National Trust by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, back in 1993, which I have looked at with some care. The complaint, in brief, is that the National Trust council turns out a list of those standing for election, putting an asterisk next to the names of those whom it favours. If those people do not get enough votes directly cast—a system that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I are used to from the many normal, direct democratic elections that we have faced in the past—the block vote is used by the National Trust to get them home and dry even though they do not have a majority of the popular vote as expressed by those present in the hall and those exercising their undoubted and proper right to vote by post.
	As has been widely reported, that happened at the National Trust annual general meeting in October this year. Some of those standing were clearly elected by the popular vote of those present or using the postal ballot, but, after a second or two of glory, they were then promptly indirectly unelected by the use of the block vote.
	Kafka could not have made this up. He would have been proud. At the 2000 annual general meeting, a motion against the block voting system was proposed and seconded by two QCs—I do not know them—and supported by 10 silks in all. The motion was supported by a majority of the direct votes of those present and those who had filled in their postal ballots, but then—yes, you have guessed it, my Lords—that vote against the block vote was promptly overturned by the use of the block vote.
	With respect, the National Trust might like to look at the practices of the National Trust for Scotland, which are wholly democratic. There is no block vote and only votes that are properly accounted for in person or through the postal ballot are taken into account. That strikes me as a thoroughly democratic system—the sort of system that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I are used to in general elections when facing the electorate.
	On this issue, I have seen correspondence sent to me from Mr Henry Keswick, who is obviously held in great esteem by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, wrote to him in September this year in the most generous terms, thanking him for what he had done for the National Gallery over the past 19 years. He has subsequently written to the National Trust chairman over what he sees as these electoral eccentricities or oddities. The chairman wrote back on 10th October to say that the council had decided to see, after the most recent AGM,
	"whether a review of election procedures was desirable".
	In my view it is not just desirable, but urgent. There should be an inquiry conducted by someone entirely independent of the National Trust. If not, I fear that pressure will grow on the Minister and the Government.
	I conclude on the matter of the regional and local voice where I had intended to begin my speech before I learnt about these troubles in the National Trust. The trust is unregulated. Despite being set up by statute for the benefit of the whole nation and its citizens, not just for paid-up members of the National Trust, there is no one to whom complaints can be made by an aggrieved tenant, for example, save the deciders of those who should or should not get an asterisk—the wielders of the block votes that I have referred to. Perhaps the Minister will give some consideration to the need for greater public transparency and accountability to those who are not necessarily members.
	Does the Minister also agree that, just as there might be a case for the council of the National Trust reaching out more to its own members, so the National Trust as a whole might reach out more in a truly inclusive way to people in the regions and localities? There are regional councils of the National Trust, but they are nominated by the centre and there is no local election to them. That seems wrong. Take the recent cause célebre—some would say scandal—over the Golden Cap estate in the National Trust's care in Dorset. The local Blackmore Vale Magazine reported to me:
	"Local Trust members are aggrieved at the lack of consultation".
	I am told that the story is repeated time and again across the country.
	That regional democratic deficit can be put right by having proper elections to regional councils, reflecting the devolutionary spirit of the times, or, perhaps more radically—I bet that this will come by the end of the present century, which has some way to go—by going further and breaking up the National Trust into a series of regional trusts. Such trusts for the South West, for the eastern counties, or for the Lakes could be more truly accountable on a range of matters. In its electoral practices and its regional structure, the legislation governing the National Trust is in need of modernisation. I wish it well and I hope that it tackles the task vigorously.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, in 1994 the National Trust celebrated its centenary under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whom I, too, welcome back to this House. I believe that the trust then enjoyed almost universal support as a greatly respected and much loved national institution. It was a shock to me when, not long ago, I attended a meeting of around 200 people in the Midlands. Those people were concerned about the future of the countryside. One of the speakers mentioned the National Trust and, quite spontaneously, from all parts of the hall, which was filled with people whom I would have considered to be the natural supporters of the trust, came hissing and booing.
	In the space of a few years, the trust has ceased to be seen as a part of the countryside and has begun to be seen by rather too many as something of a threat to it. All who care for the trust—I count myself as one of them—should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating this debate. In recent years, since 1996, the style and direction of the trust's leadership has changed. What has gone wrong—and something has gone very wrong—needs to be debated not only in the carefully orchestrated confines of stage-managed AGMs but publicly and in Parliament.
	I declare my interests. I am a long-standing member of the trust and, since 1998, I have been a supporter of the Friends of the National Trust—a group of other members who were as distressed as I was by what was going on. In essence, and if one had to put it in a sentence, the trust appears, perhaps as a result of its own success and its growth, to have stopped listening to locals, to its tenants, to its members and to its volunteers. It has become over-centralised, over-bureaucratic and unresponsive.
	Central decision-taking means that the regional committees, which could and should ensure that local requirements are properly reflected in decisions, are effectively powerless. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, who carried out the last major review of the trust's constitution in 1993, recommended that those committees should be given greater autonomy. But I can see no sign whatever that that has happened; indeed, the very opposite appears to be true.
	There is a problem—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has referred to it already—in the way in which the National Trust manages its membership and the members' views through the existing voting procedures of the AGM. Quite rightly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, made it clear that membership resolutions cannot be binding on the council. How could one manage an outfit of the size of the trust if it were run in such a way?
	However, he made it clear that he saw the AGM as a way in which, by debate and by members' resolutions, members could seek to influence council decisions. Therefore, he recommended no change to the voting procedures either for the membership of the council—half of which is elected—or for the resolutions. But he cannot have anticipated how the existing provisions would be used under the chairmanship of Mr Charles Nunneley, who took over in 1996.
	Mr Nunneley has indicated in correspondence as recently as 11th April 2000 that past chairmen—I am somewhat timorous about saying what past chairmen did because two of them are present—tended to say, when asked, that it was their normal practice to distribute their proxy votes in the same proportion as the votes cast directly by members. But he added,
	"My own experience as Chairman has led me to take a different line from my predecessors".
	He began to use the proxy votes to support candidates for council whom he preferred and to oppose resolutions which were critical of the way in which his council had dealt with issues.
	After many years of pressure, this year at the AGM the numbers of those proxy votes and how they were cast have for the first time been made public. It makes disturbing reading because it is clear that for some time the council has managed to defeat critical resolution after critical resolution. I give one example of the Golden Cap estate, to which reference has already been made. A motion by members critical of the trust's handling of that estate was defeated by 1,500 votes. But when the matter is examined, of the members who cast their votes themselves, 42,000 voted against the council's handling and 19,400 in favour of the council. But by throwing his 24,861 proxy votes behind the council, the chairman was able to defeat his critics. So much for the AGM providing the forum for members' complaints.
	Of course, until this year the composition of the council, too, effectively was determined by the chairman because his proxy vote ensures success for any candidates whom he chooses to support. This year, following last year's resolution, to which reference has been made, we are told that the chairman appointed a small sub-committee from his council to interview the candidates and to make recommendations. Those recommendations appeared on the face of the ballot paper that each member received. Over 10,000 discretionary votes were then used by the chairman to secure the election of all the candidates whom the council wanted as fellow members. It is right to say that one of them had come one from bottom in the original poll. So much for the members having the opportunity to choose half of the council by election.
	In reality, the council is chosen by the chairman through the small sub-committee that he has set up in the past year. He has chosen the successors of those who, in due course, will have the job of determining who will chair the council. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. Examination of what has been going on indicates that one of the greatest charities in our nation deserves a better constitution.
	Before the debate began, I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, whether it was to be a debate about hunting. I told her that it was not. However, I must mention hunting because it is a matter that has soured relations between the trust and a considerable section of the rural community, and it continues to do so. In doing that, I declare an interest both as a supporter of the Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds and also as president of the Countryside Alliance.
	The debate is not about hunting but it is about breach of trust. The Holnicote estate in Somerset, which I know well, was given to the trust on the clear understanding of the donor, Sir Richard Acland, that stag hunting should continue there until it was outlawed by Parliament. He understood the importance of stag hunting to the local community to which he belonged. He continued to say so until his death in 1990. Over and over again, the excellent director-general of the trust, now Sir Angus Stirling, made it clear in writing and elsewhere that the trust would respect its donor's wishes until and unless Parliament decreed otherwise.
	Perhaps there is no time now to go into the history of the matter, but it is a sordid history and there is no other way to describe it. A report was commissioned by Professor Bateson. The hunt's consent and co-operation in obtaining samples for the scientific material was obtained on a promise that the hunt would be shown the draft report before it was presented to the trust and would be given an opportunity to comment. In December 1996, Professor Bateson told the master of the local hounds that she had nothing to fear.
	In January 1997 a meeting took place at Cambridge between officials of the trust and Professor Bateson. The details of that meeting have never been published, but its result appears to be that Professor Bateson went back on his undertaking to show the report to the hunt. It was sent to the chairman in March that year. He did not distribute it to his council members until the day before a meeting which had been convened to discuss the report. On the day before that meeting he held a press conference in which he made it clear that he would recommend to his council that a ban on stag hunting should take place.
	Since then, of course, much further scientific work has cast the very gravest doubts on some of the most basic findings of that report. But, in relation to a resolution in 1998 asking the trust to reaffirm its commitment to observe donors' wishes, the chairman once again put his proxy vote behind the opposition to that resolution in order to support his own position. There is therefore bitterness.
	Whatever one's views of the rights and wrongs of hunting, that matter was handled appallingly. Richard Walker, who had to deal with the matter in the High Court back in 1997, made that clear. The resentment continues, particularly in the West Country, where the trust is now regarded as a bad neighbour. It is regarded not as part of the rural community but as something set apart. I very much hope that the new director-general, Miss Fiona Reynolds, of whom we all have the very highest hopes, will take steps to establish what can be done to put matters right. I fear that the founder of the trust, Octavia Hill, would not be pleased by what has happened during the past six years.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, I hope that I may start on a personal note. It is a pleasure to be back in your Lordships' House—quite unexpectedly, too—not least because of the warm welcome I have received from the police, the Attendants and many noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for their kind remarks. I do, however, feel just a little rusty, although I hope that I am not a retread. I was chairman of the trust from 1991 until 1996, I recently attended its annual general meeting and I keep in touch with it.
	When I was thinking about what I should say this evening, I was a little puzzled. I wondered why the noble Lord, Lord Patten, should be interested in the somewhat arcane matter of the National Trust Acts. Even more, I wondered why he should expect the Government to be interested in them. In the event, his agenda was rather different, although not all of it was unexpected.
	I want to touch on one of the main thrusts in the noble Lord's interesting speech. He said that the trust should be more regional and should, in effect, be split up—that was his ultimate aim. That, of course, is not a new idea; it has been around for quite a long time. My immediate observations are threefold. First, the trust is a national trust. Its importance and influence are much greater if it is national and not split up into regions. Secondly, important economies of scale can be gained in terms of the expert advice and specialist advisory services that are offered. My third observation involves a more profound problem; that is, the weight of the trust's membership is very largely in the South East, whereas disproportionately much of its expenditure is in the North, the Lake District, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall, which are relatively poor in terms of trust income. If there were, for example, a hugely rich and independent south-eastern national trust, I doubt whether it would be frightfully interested in subsidising the Lake District, Northumbria, Wales, Northern Ireland or Cornwall. There is a problem in that regard. The noble Lord may have a point in that a more federal structure might begin to emerge through the new structure which is just about to be introduced.
	Incidentally, I say to the noble Baroness that although it is true that my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver suggested that the regions should be strengthened, he was not in favour of elections. I wish that I had time to deal with all of the other points—there were many—in her speech.
	I shall try to answer the question that I raised earlier; namely, why is the noble Lord interested in the National Trust Acts? I shall put the question slightly differently. Why does a private charity have to have its own Acts of Parliament? The answer is that the National Trust was founded in 1895 as a company limited by guarantee. That is still a popular vehicle for setting up charities. Later, Parliament gave it the power, which only Parliament can override, to declare land and property inalienable. That required legislation that was provided in the first Act—the 1907 Act. By doing that, the original company-type constitution was, in effect, simply put into the Act. As a result, it includes much of what I should call constitutional housekeeping. To take just one example, it includes in Section 17 provisions for the vacation of office by a council member who fails to attend meetings. That is scarcely the stuff of primary legislation. The legislation is a private Act, and it was last updated, as has already been noted, in 1971. We have a somewhat odd arrangement, which is cumbersome but relatively easy to live with and it would be relatively expensive to change.
	If that curiosity had been the main point of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question, I should have been sympathetic. However, I would have reminded him of the wise words of the American mechanic: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
	That is why the trust was set up with its own Act. In all other respects, the trust is subject to charity law, fiscal and otherwise, and is the responsibility of the Charity Commissioner in the same way as any other charity.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. Eight years ago he carried out a comprehensive review of the trust's constitution and his report is the main point of my departure. He devoted considerable length to matters such as voting on resolutions and elections at AGMs. I shall concentrate on that because it was a contentious issue in 1993, and it has evidently become a contentious issue again.
	On the question of the chairman's proxy vote—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, called it a block vote—the argument, as the noble Lord rightly said, was that members who gave the chairman their votes without specifying how the chairman should vote put too much power in the chairman's hands. My noble and learned friend commented on that. He said:
	"There is no convincing argument that it could be of any conceivable benefit to the working of the Trust to deprive a substantial part of the membership of the option, which they clearly value, to delegate to another member the decision of an issue on which they are invited to vote".
	It was the practice then and I believe that it is the practice now, although the noble Baroness obviously does not agree, for the chairman to cast his unmandated votes on resolutions in accordance with council policy and not, except on rare occasions, to use his proxy votes in elections. I very much doubt whether that has changed. On that, my noble and learned friend said:
	"that the Chairman of the day has exercised the judicious use of that power in respect of a handful of individuals over the years is, in my view, perfectly proper and not a ground for criticism".
	All of that is well known.
	Since then there have been procedural changes, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I do not want to go over that ground again because I do not have much time. I invite the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to study the Oliver report again. It seems to me that they have not really addressed the arguments of my noble and learned friend. He stated, in paragraph 80 of his report:
	"On balance, I can find no compelling reason which would lead me to recommend that the voting system at general meetings, either on resolutions or on elections, should be substantially altered. Similar criticisms to those raised in the present inquiry appear to be have been raised both at the time of the Benson Review and of the Arkell Review. In neither case was it thought right to recommend any alteration in the system of proxy voting".
	Both the Benson report—I believe that it was produced in 1968 and that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, was a member of the relevant body—and the Arkell review touched on the constitution and took exactly the same line.
	Neither the noble Lord, Lord Patten, nor, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, can reliably draw conclusions from the figures that the noble Baroness cited regarding recent motions because neither she nor anyone else can know how those who gave the chairman their discretionary vote would have voted if such discretion had not been available. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that her conclusion is logically valid.
	I must bring my remarks to a conclusion. I regret that I have not had time to discuss other important constitutional matters—or, indeed, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I must content myself with a final quotation from the final paragraph of the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. He said:
	"it is with administration of a charity that this inquiry has been concerned, and I have heard nothing in the course of it which has persuaded me of the necessity for, or desirability of, any substantial alteration in the basic constitution as it was conceived by the founders of the Trust."
	Nothing that I have heard today, or during the intervening years, suggests to me that the conclusion is not still valid.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Patten has given us a great opportunity this evening to consider this issue, and we are grateful to him. I must also say what a pleasure it is, as both the other noble Lords who have spoken said, to see the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in the Chamber this evening and to have the benefit of his experience as chairman of the trust.
	I, too, should declare an interest as a member of the National Trust and a supporter of the marvellous work that it does. I have been a member for many years, although, I must admit, not an especially active one. Perhaps I should also declare my interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance—an organisation that has not always agreed with every one of the trust's decisions but has always recognised and usually supported the trust's role as one of the United Kingdom's largest landowners.
	It has become clear to me—I have received this message from many quarters during the past few days—that all is not well with the National Trust. The trust has a vast bank of goodwill on which to draw; but there is a growing feeling—which, I think, led to my noble friend's Question—that the account in that bank is getting a little low.
	I perceive problems in two specific areas. The first is the way in which the trust is and is seen to be managed at the top; the second lies in respect of the trust's relation with its tenants, neighbours and supporters in the countryside—as opposed to its supporters who do not live in the countryside.
	As someone who sits on the board of a large countryside organisation with a large and occasionally difficult membership, I am well aware of the difficulties of managing such an awkward creature, but I also know that if I were on the council of the National Trust, I would be extremely worried. First and foremost, I know how almost impossible it is to run such an organisation with a council—in other words, a board—that has 52 members. It is a difficult position, and if day-to-day management is delegated to an executive committee, as in the trust's case, that is far smaller but still representative of that board, while some problems are solved, others are multiplied. I do not know whether the size of the council is laid down in the Act—I think that it may be—but until the number on the council is substantially reduced, any management problems are bound to increase.
	It was not until I looked in detail at the way the chairman uses his proxy votes to ensure the election of pre-selected candidates, regardless of the votes of the membership, that I realised what a complete mess he has got into, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. That way of packing the council is completely unsatisfactory, almost as unsatisfactory as are the Government's proposals for this House. I listened carefully to the quotation from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, but he wrote that report before those activities—that way of managing the council—occurred. The noble and learned Lord would not have written what he did if the council was being managed in that manner at the time. A big change has taken place.
	The National Trust is not a campaigning organisation, nor can it operate like one. Some years ago, when the animal rights movement decided to move in on the trust and turn it into a political football, I remember the enormous headache that responding to those circumstances gave the chairman of the day, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. He spent a lot of time and energy trying to pour oil on troubled waters, and with a mixture of tact and gentle persuasion sought to steer his ship through some tricky waters. Some of the problems that the trust faces today stem from that era, and I would be interested to know, whether, with the benefit of hindsight, the noble Lord would have taken an even more robust line than he did, or whether that was possible.
	However, I am certain that the way that the present chairman is leading the trust has exacerbated rather than soothed the situation. In particular, the manner in which the chairman has used proxy votes—what my noble friend Lord Patten referred to as block votes—at AGMs to bolster his own policy decisions and prevent dissent, is a tactic that, while it may be acceptable in a commercial setting, is totally out of place in a charity. The first rule of management in a publicly accountable charity is transparency. That has been lost, and with it a good deal of support.
	Of course it is difficult to run a democratic organisation when most members are detached from day-to-day problems, and especially when within the membership are smaller groups of activists focused on their own area of concern. However, the solution is not to avoid the issues and seek to stifle dissent—especially when the price for following that course of action is the alienation of supporters and those with whom the trust works on a daily basis.
	The second problem concerns the trust's relationship with its tenants and—although to a much lesser extent—with its neighbours. In preparing for today's debate, I spoke to as many people as I could—in particular to tenants. What I found did not comfort me. Clearly, I could not speak to a representative number, but I spoke to enough of them to realise that the National Trust is a landowner in serious danger of losing the confidence and support of its tenants; in some areas, it has already done so. If that were to continue, it would be catastrophic, and it must not be allowed to happen.
	I am fully aware that one of the most difficult things to do is to communicate with large groups of people—be they tenants or members—and that the cost of such communications may be prohibitive, but there is clearly a serious problem of lack of constructive dialogue within the trust itself and between management and tenants. Indeed, my conversations with senior management within the trust were completely at odds with what I learned elsewhere. I do not believe that there is complacency as such, but I suspect that in some areas management simply cannot see the wood for the trees and do not realise that, with respect to their tenants, they are sitting on a time bomb. It may also be that some of the management of the trust are following a policy that everything is all right. If so, they are sorely mistaken, because it is not all right.
	The unhappiness of tenants in the West Country on Exmoor is well known—the noble Baroness talked about it a few minutes ago—but it is not isolated. As my noble friend Lord Patten said, a substantial group of members and supporters of the trust in west Dorset proposed a resolution at the last AGM criticising the trust's management in respect of its activities on the Golden Cap estate. I do not know the ins and outs of that issue, but one thing is absolutely clear. The issue, which I am sure is difficult—such issues always are—has been hopelessly mismanaged by the trust.
	One swallow does not a summer make, but two swallows and several angry resolutions are too warm for comfort. I have no doubt that each issue can be explained away, but what cannot be explained away is an unpleasant feeling of malaise, which is beginning to surface more than it should. This is not a happy evening for the National Trust; if it is wise, it will take notice. As I said at the outset, I do not know whether the legislation governing the trust needs to be updated, or whether this is an issue of style of management.
	If your Lordships conclude that further legislation is not required—if it is, I cannot see it being proposed for a long time—it may well be that the only solution is a change at the top. There is no doubt that a focus for the issues that we are discussing has been the manner in which the council is run and the way in which the AGM is chaired—both of which are entirely unsuited to a trust operating in this day and age. A chairman with the best interests of the National Trust at heart might well conclude that he should step aside and let someone else take on the task of rebuilding the bank of goodwill to which I referred, before that bank account slips into the red.

Lord Gibson: My Lords, I find myself in difficulty in that I retired as chairman of the trust 15 years ago—I took it on 25 years ago—and do not recognise in the criticisms that have been made this evening the trust as I knew it. I shall not try to defend it from those criticisms; I have no knowledge of the facts. I regret that but cannot help it.
	I want to talk about the word "modernisation". The trust has not been dilatory in modernising itself. When I joined the executive committee 40 years ago and became chairman 10 years later, the trust did not feel it ought to do anything except manage historic buildings and care for the landscape which had been entrusted to it for public enjoyment. In those days there was never any question of becoming involved in public arguments unless the issues directly affected the trust's properties. Many local questions did so. But the trust did not become involved, and did not feel that it should in the great public questions in which it is involved today.
	I applaud that change. I am sure that the new director-general will take it further. She is a natural campaigner. We in the trust never used to campaign. But the world has changed and the trust has changed enormously. The context in which it operates has also changed and we can foresee further changes in the trust. If the complaints made by noble Lords are right, then I have no doubt that nobody is better qualified to correct them than the new director-general who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, we all regard with esteem.
	Looking back—old men are allowed to look back—over the past quarter of a century, when I became chairman we had recently had the Benson report, which led to the Act of 1971. We then had the Arkell report in the early 1980s, and my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, a former Lord of Appeal, produced a report in the 1990s. There has been no lack of the trust looking at itself and changing accordingly. Certainly my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver did not recommend what he called "tinkering" with the constitution. But the trust would not be opposed to further legislation if, in the course of the continuous review, it was felt to be necessary.
	I have asked about the current review and am told it is quite far-reaching. There is no question of the trust being broken up into regional units. That would be a mistake. In all large organisations—certainly any with which I have been connected—tensions exist between the centre and the outlying parts. That is certainly true in business and it is a perennial problem. But if the organisation is well managed, a balance can be reached where the differences are tolerated and dealt with. However, they will always exist.
	I do not know what one should do about the trust as it increases in size. I do not believe that it will take over any more historic houses. Owners can now set up their own trust, so that is unlikely. In the past few years it obtained Chasleton, where there was no money for the use of the private owner and it was not subscribed to sufficiently by the public, though it is a wonderful house. But I do not think that will happen too often in the future. There will always be more land. And the new idea of the trust showing what happened to middle and working-class families is a laudable idea.
	The recently published three-year strategic plan of the trust promotes three strands. It wants to lead the cause of countryside regeneration; it wants to stress the importance of lifelong learning and education; and it wants to deepen the general understanding of our landscape and historic heritage. Those are laudable and enormous aims, and quite a different type of trust, if it succeeds in those aims, will emerge.
	The trust wants to broaden its appeal, and I applaud that so long as it is not done at the expense of standards of presentation and curatorial expertise. There is always that danger. It happens with museums when they try to broaden their appeal that something is lost in terms of standards. That wants watching and I am sure the trust will try to monitor it.
	I can understand why people resent the voting system. However, I was persuaded by the Oliver argument that if I, as a member of the trust, cannot attend a meeting and want to transfer my vote and give a proxy to another member who can—it may be the chairman—it is not undemocratic that I should be allowed to do so. My noble and learned friend referred to the disproportionate power that the chairman is said to have because of that. But he pointed out that it was only disproportionate because a proportion of members had decided to make it so. He asked why they should not have the right to do that. I can understand the frustration it causes. But as a member of the trust, which I still am—I am a life member—I do not want to give up my right to give a proxy. I never attend the annual meetings. If the consequence is that the chairman has a lot of proxies which enable him to determine the matter, then presumably that is what the members who voted in that way want. It may be frustrating to people who feel that those members have not heard the arguments, but it is not undemocratic.
	I do not have much more to add. I enjoyed my chairmanship of the trust more than any other job I have ever done. I hate to hear the trust attacked as it has been this evening. I hope that those problems can be put right. I am too old to take part in the process, but I commend the trust to your Lordships as an example of a charity which, taken over its lifetime, has done a fantastic job.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for introducing this important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the National Trust and the Countryside Alliance. I wish to point out, like my noble friend, that I am generally a great admirer of the institution and the work it has done in protecting our building heritage. A particularly shining example near to where I live has been Uppark in Sussex, where the restoration after a serious fire has been magnificently achieved. Also, its work to protect our coastline deserves high praise.
	The trust's latest 2000-01 report contains some interesting statements. The chairman, Charles Nunneley, says at the very start of his commentary:
	"The least welcome change has been the decline in the fortunes of the farming community ... the trust has been working with all our farm tenants throughout the year and with the Government at national and regional levels ... The council receives progress reports on agricultural and rural matters at every meeting. The future of the countryside remains at the top of our agenda".
	The director-general, Fiona Reynolds, stated in her review that the trust must be seen,
	"showing leadership in attacking the problems affecting the countryside".
	She went on,
	"Our relations with our farm tenants have never been better".
	From my experience as an investment fund manager I have seen how complacency can creep into large companies and organisations and how leading executives can make impressive generalised statements where, in reality, the situation on the ground is rather different.
	In some ways I believe that the trust is a victim of its own success. It has grown enormously in size and as a result has become increasingly bureaucratic. For example, a trust tenant locally in Hampshire was visited by no fewer than 15 different trust advisers when he required some building work to be done. That was before the builders were involved.
	Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are many other examples of this cumbersome officialdom, which demonstrates how centralised the trust management style has become. As was stated by many speakers, at council level it appears that Charles Nunneley, the chairman since 1996, has centralised the council's role, taking upon himself and a few senior officials major powers and using the council as a rubber stamp. I shall seek to demonstrate that by reiterating the story of the Acland Estate in Devon.
	Sir Richard Acland left his property, Holnicote, to the National Trust nearly 60 years ago. He was well known for his love of hunting and made it clear in a memorandum of wishes that he wished stag hunting to continue on the estate unless or until outlawed by Parliament. He was advised that it was not necessary to specify that in the deed handing over the property as he put faith in the National Trust to honour his wishes. Indeed, at all times until April 1997 the National Trust stated in clear and unequivocal terms that the express wish of donors in favour of hunting would continue to be honoured in relation to gifts of land made to the National Trust.
	As has been stated, in July 1994 the trust commissioned a report by Professor Bateson into the effect on deer of deer hunting, which concluded that the sport was cruel. As stated by others, the report was undertaken in great secrecy. Even the local hunt was not allowed to comment on its conclusions prior to publication. From reliable written evidence I have seen, the succeeding chairman, Charles Nunneley, kept the conclusions of the report under wraps until the very day before asking the council to approve it. It had not enough time to study it in detail.
	Even though subsequently an independent study replicating experiments on which Bateson had based some of his key findings came up with results so different that he was forced to radically water them down, the chairman pushed through the report and the council was denied the opportunity of obtaining the opinions of other animal physiologists critical of the Bateson report and its conclusions. The council has since refused to change its mind. That meant that a traditional country sport, which has not been declared illegal by the law of the land, is now banned from the property despite the strong wishes of the former landowner. It has alienated all the local tenant farmers who are now faced with a massive increase in the local deer population, thus damaging their crops, fences and woodlands. As a result, relations with the National Trust are far from the halcyon situation reported by Fiona Reynolds in the annual report. The farmers are angry at being deprived of their legal sport and are having to shoot the deer. That has meant far more wounded animals, which the hunt has then been asked to destroy. The trust should not interfere in that sort of matter when it is not illegal.
	Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, this question. Should not the National Trust Acts be amended to prevent the trust from passing its own laws on its properties which run contrary to the law of the land or against the legitimate wishes of the donor? Also, should the Acts be altered to prevent the chairman using his proxy votes in such a way to overturn the wishes of its voting membership?
	Another example already mentioned by several speakers is the case of the Golden Cap estate. A motion deploring the sacking of a long-established warden sponsored by the Dorset region was carried on the direct vote of members by some 23,000 votes but was defeated when the chairman used his proxy vote of no fewer than 24,861 to overturn it.
	Another case of using proxy votes occurred at the annual general meeting this year, the date of which is not listed in the annual report. As has been stated, the chairman once again used his proxy votes against what appeared to be the views of the membership. When direct votes of the members were counted, Robin Page, the farmer and journalist, was 7,000 votes ahead of Elsie Owusu but the chairman used his proxy votes to ensure Miss Owusu's election.
	Finally, to further confirm the trust's centralising tendencies, it has been announced that the head office and three regional offices are moving from Queen Anne's Gate to Swindon in 2004 except for the director-general and 40 others. According to the Daily Telegraph of 26th August, that has caused dismay among its 120 staff and is likely to mean that as many as 80 per cent will not stay. The article states:
	"Senior staff are furious. They fear they will lose contact with the academic institutions and contacts that are essential for their work. In particular they resent the double standards apparently being applied by Mrs Reynolds and her immediate staff who will stay in London".
	In conclusion, I repeat my opening views that I am a great supporter of the trust as originally set up. However, some of its actions in the past seven years have caused me great concern. I do not know whether such actions can be corrected by legislation. Like my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I suspect that it is the chairman that needs to be changed.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for intervening briefly in the gap. I should declare an interest as a member of the north-west regional committee of the National Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, would no doubt regard that as questionable. I am also an ordinary member of the trust but I am not a member of the council or the executive.
	I found it difficult to recognise the trust from some of the comments that have been made tonight. The tremendously strong membership, the number of people who visit the properties and the kind of spontaneous, general public support for its work illustrate its high standing among many people in this country. It is also important to keep in mind that the trust takes seriously its responsibilities, one of which it sees as protecting wildlife and the natural resources for which it is responsible. When it considered the Bateson report, it felt it had no alternative but to take action on red deer because of the suffering which, that report established, was beyond question. Therefore, it acted and did what it believed was required of it in terms of its statutory responsibilities.
	I should like to say more, but I shall make one further point. I have worked half my life in voluntary agencies. I have often held out the trust as a model of an organisation which has huge responsibilities, which takes its work seriously and which also has a popular membership. How many other charities in this country have a popular membership which can participate in an annual general meeting in the way that happens in the National Trust? As has been said, if as an ordinary member I decide voluntarily to give the chairman the right to act on my behalf, why should not I be entitled to do that? Why should I be debarred from doing that by people who turn up at the annual general meeting when, for a whole host of reasons, I may be unable to attend?
	In conclusion, I believe that a sledgehammer has been taken to tackle a nut in this debate. I am sure that all the points which have been made will be taken seriously by the trust. However, the chair of the trust said at the last AGM—why has this not been mentioned in the debate?—that the trust is undertaking its own review of its governance. Surely that is what we should applaud and support.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly. For the past 31 years I have had the honour of representing a constituency in which some of the greatest problems and tensions of the National Trust have recently arisen. For 25 of those years, during the chairmanships of the two noble Lords who have spoken, I had no difficulties. I have watched with great distress the way in which an organisation which I much admire has got itself into this appalling mess over hunting. Hunting is a difficult issue, with which I have lived for many years. There are strong feelings on both sides. It was the silliest move possible for the National Trust to get right ahead of the game and of Parliament and to get itself involved in this issue.
	Out of that has come a more searching inquiry into the way in which the decision was taken. I say simply that I can confirm the details given by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about the way in which the matter was handled. It was a tragic misjudgment by the then chairman of the National Trust and it brings into question the way in which the organisation is run.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I was fortunate enough earlier to speak briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who has been kind enough to introduce this important debate. He told me about his plans to talk about regionalisation and he has drawn to our attention other matters about which he has learnt. The questions he asked about regionalisation have been dealt with well by two distinguished former chairmen the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Gibson. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will be satisfied with that.
	I did not detect an intention to question the independence of the National Trust as a charity registered by Royal Charter. I hope that I am right in saying that. Furthermore, I did not detect a suggestion that there should be direct government intervention in the affairs of the trust. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government have no intention of doing so. I believe that such intervention would be bad.
	Charity law is rigorous in protecting the independence of charities. They can reach agreements with governing bodies, and that might involve taking into account what the Government say and advise. After all, the Government are powerful and sometimes it is in the interests of bodies to seek their advice and guidance. I do not know whether we have reached that point in this case; the National Trust has taken a battering today from various noble Lords.
	Although I listened to and took on board the points eloquently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and others, I liked the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. It seemed to be fair-minded and, as one would expect, full of expertise and optimism for the future of the trust. There is no doubt that the trust has changed a good deal over the years, but its characteristics have been copied by many countries. By and large, it has not had many ups and downs. It has had mostly "ups" but, if we believe what noble Lords say, it appears that we are experiencing if not a "down", the prospect of one.
	The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, spoke of proxy votes and I thought that his comments were fair and correct. If members do not choose to exercise their proxy votes, what is unfair and undemocratic about the chairman using them? Surely the remedy is with the body to ensure that more members use their votes rather than allowing them to be used as proxies.
	I have read some of the press comment about recent events in the National Trust. Since the days of Octavia Hill and Peregrinations on his Bicycle by James Lees-Milne a great deal has taken place. It is no longer merely a question of persuading people to hand over their houses, gardens and great areas of coastline to the care of the National Trust. As noble Lords have said, the National Trust is now an enormous body; it has grown beyond what was imagined some years ago. Noble Lords have given the number of houses, monuments, farms and other properties for which it has responsibility; and until recently, all appeared to go swimmingly.
	Like many other noble Lords, I have worked for large organisations. I know that when they reach a certain size they do not necessarily become bureaucratic, but they begin to have a vision of their role and they become keen on communicating it to the world at large. The National Trust has done that. However, large organisations often do not see that communication within the institution is as important and that it should take priority before they go out and promote their ideas for radical changes. The fact that the proposed move to Swindon from its charming headquarters close by was rejected by 80 per cent of its staff shows a singular lack of communication within the operation.
	Although it has not been mentioned today, we read about various sackings of guides, and strange and "East German" ways of taking on volunteers. Those stories may or may not be true, but the press has latched on to them. I do not believe everything I read in the press, but there must be a seed of truth there somewhere.
	I hope that all that gives support to my argument that improving communication within the National Trust needs to be one of the first jobs of the new director-general. He comes highly commended and has rightly been praised today by noble Lords. However, we may be alarmed about the press picking up the announcements made by the trust as a change of direction; we have heard a number of quotations from its members which have almost the vernacular of class conflict, which I find most disturbing.
	Of course large houses should contain a proper display of the "downstairs" as well as the "upstairs" areas. In saying that, perhaps I may recommend to your Lordships the new film, "Gosford Park", which is about just such matters. There is no problem about the National Trust making a great effort to pay attention to the promotion and restoration of workhouses, factories and other industrial sites and to the role of servants, prisons and so forth. I do not believe that James Lees-Milne would have fallen off his bicycle had he heard that such developments were about to take place.
	This is a moment of great change for the trust—indeed, apart from anything else, it is a moment of great change for tourism in this country—and for the way in which people perceive their history. Unfortunately, history is no longer a priority and one of the roles of the trust is to regenerate an interest in history. It will do that by doing what it says it intends to do, but, for heaven's sake, I hope that it does not enter into a confrontational argument with various sections of our community about whether or not certain issues are politically correct. Let us have some common sense. We are going through a change and people are seeing things differently. Surely the National Trust is big enough to be able to make a change without upsetting all kinds of people and other bodies.
	An organisation such as the National Trust is by nature conservative in the non-political sense. It is difficult to change, but change will happen. That is all I have to say on the subject and I wish the trust well.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Patten for introducing the debate. He began by describing himself as a friendly outsider. Perhaps I may describe myself as a friendly insider and declare an interest as an ordinary member of the trust. Indeed, I enjoyed a walk across trust land only yesterday.
	Every organisation needs regularly to review whether it is still meeting the needs for which it was established and in a way which is effective, appropriate and fair. My noble friend is right to raise a debate about an organisation governing one of our great national institutions and whether it is in need of modernisation. He has chosen an interesting and appropriate time to do so.
	In November of last year the National Trust began an organisational review in order to reallocate its staff and resources. As we have heard, last month it commissioned a review of its corporate governance. I was surprised to learn from the National Trust briefing that this is the first time in over 30 years that the trust's management structures have been looked at. I am surprised that the trust escaped the obsession in the 1980s with management restructuring and reviews. I was pleased to read in the brief prepared by the trust that the review of its governance will be significant and will consider, among other options, whether detailed changes to its statutes are desirable or necessary.
	I believe that my noble friend's debate tonight will provide valuable input to the trust's review of its governance, and I hope that it will take very careful note of your Lordships' views.
	The National Trust has a proud history as a guardian for the nation in the acquisition and protection of threatened coastline, countryside and buildings. As my noble friend Lord Patten said, more than a century later it still cares for nearly a quarter of a million hectares of countryside throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pointed out that the trust had a unique statutory power to declare land inalienable and that such land cannot be voluntarily sold, mortgaged or compulsorily purchased against the trust's wishes without special parliamentary procedure.
	Whether or not we are members, all of us look to the National Trust to be a contemporary organisation which cares for our past so that we treasure it but do not seal it in aspic. It must be a living legacy which we can all enjoy now and make sure that it is left for the enjoyment of others in the future.
	My noble friend Lord Northbrook said that on 23rd October of this year the National Trust unveiled changes in its regional structure and the location of its regional offices. The press release that accompanied that announcement stated that,
	"The move is part of a wider organisational review aimed at boosting the way the trust's 4,000 staff and 40,000 volunteers carry out the charity's diverse work—from preserving historic buildings and monuments to helping its tenant farmers weather the current agricultural crisis".
	It goes on to say that regional offices which provide advice and support to trust properties on everything from conservation to marketing are being changed. I note that as part of the change to its boundaries and regional offices Devon and Cornwall are to become a single region. Although the regional offices at Killerton and Lanhydrock will continue, I wonder how that was received in the South West. I am aware from my work on tourism of the fiercely independent spirit in both counties. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that on some occasions in the South West the National Trust is now seen as a bad neighbour. That is indeed disturbing.
	Tonight we have heard of discontent with the manner in which the trust has operated recently and the fact that it has omitted to make some of the reforms which my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, believe are vital to the success of the careful management of our national heritage. Some concern has been expressed that perhaps the trust has become too centralist in its approach. My noble friend Lord Mancroft spoke about the way in which important questions of policy were decided by the council. He referred to the management problems which follow from a council with as many as 52 members, thereby delegating authority of action to the executive committee. My noble friend Lord Patten and others have expressed concern about how members of the council are elected. He said that perhaps the needs and views of some regions are currently not being given due weight by that body. My noble friend Lord Patten encapsulated the problems very effectively by referring to the regional and democratic deficit.
	It is vital that national organisations are sensitive to the needs of different regions and adopt policies which enable them to have the flexibility to respond to those needs. That may mean changing the way in which representatives of the regional voices are heard at national level, and perhaps weighting voting systems so that they can have a direct impact on national decision-making when it affects a particular area either solely or in some special way.
	As to the democratic deficit, many noble Lords have spoken about the practice of vast numbers of proxy votes being controlled by the chairman at the AGM. I hope that that practice comes under close scrutiny in the trust's review. My noble friend Lord Mancroft questioned whether that method of operation was right for a charity. All I say at this stage is that perhaps one avenue that may be explored is whether a cap should be placed on the number of proxies that any one person can control. That would meet the very proper view put forward by some noble Lords this evening that individuals should be able to appoint proxies to act on their behalf. That is part of our democratic system. But it would also reflect the process which I am aware takes place in parliamentary elections, for example the right of people who live overseas to a proxy vote here. Someone who exercises that right is subject to a cap on the number of votes that may be so exercised.
	I can understand that members may feel remote from the trust's decision-making processes, and that is a danger for all national organisations, however well or ill run they may be. It is the duty of every national organisation to resolve the problems that stem from the feeling of isolation and alienation. If they do not do so they threaten their own viable future. The review currently being undertaken by the trust is, therefore, both welcome and, it appears, necessary.
	I understand that the trust is independent of government, but I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister on the progress made by the trust so far, how the Government anticipate that the trust may develop the review and over what timescale they believe it is reasonable for the review to be completed. In particular, we look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the suggestion of many noble Lords that perhaps there should be an independent review, as my noble friend Lord Patten suggested, of the rules governing the voting systems used by the National Trust.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing the debate this evening. The debate has attracted not only a number of very penetrative contributions but, for an Unstarred Question, has secured the attendance of an extraordinarily large number of Members of your Lordships' House with an interest in the subject.
	I believe that perhaps the most pertinent question was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I intend to answer it directly because that sets the context for the rest of my contribution. He asked whether the independence of the National Trust as a charity was likely to be infringed or challenged, and whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to intervene. The answer to both questions is no. It would not be right for the Government to intervene in these terms. The National Trust is set up under statute, but it is an independent charity whose rights are set in that framework. That greatly constrains the nature of the contribution that I make this evening. The National Trust is in no way in receipt of taxpayers' money.
	At this point I declare an interest. I am one of the 2.8 million members of the trust. Perhaps that is why the question of proxy voting arises to some degree. I cannot conceive of any hall which would accommodate all of the members if they wished to attend the annual general meeting. I hear the criticisms which have been made of the way in which the chair of the National Trust has exercised proxy votes. I have no doubt that the one great benefit of the debate this evening is that the limited framework within which the National Trust operates has been brought before Parliament. We do not have the power to decide any of these issues or reach definitive judgments on them.
	But the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has taken advantage of this opportunity to table the debate in which others have joined. Therefore, if there are anxieties about the way in which the trust conducts its business, that is an important point to bear in mind. However, I join with the former chairmen of the National Trust, the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Gibson, and my noble friend Lord Judd, who stoutly defended the work of the National Trust. We all greatly value the work of the trust. It is one of our cherished national institutions with an immense responsibility. Sixty million visits are made to the trust's properties by our fellow citizens, many of whom are not members. The trust is concerned to protect a large amount of land, including 582 miles of coastline, 20,000 vernacular buildings, over 200 houses of historic interest, 164 gardens, 75 landscape parks, 1,000 scheduled ancient monuments and over 40,000 sites of archaeological interest. It may be that the debate this evening reflects the fact that the National Trust in some way struggles with the problems of success given the size of the enterprise in which it is involved. It is important therefore that the trust pursues its affairs effectively and with responsiveness to its members.
	The trust should make sure that it meets changing times. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and other noble Lords who have expressed some anxiety as to whether the trust is up-to-date in the year 2001 that it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the fact that its management structures have not been reviewed during these past 30 years. It may therefore be thought to be timely that that is taking place at the present time. The reviews that are being conducted are clearly of the greatest import.
	Some recognition has been made today by noble Lords to the energy and commitment of the relatively recently appointed director-general, Fiona Reynolds. She has the reputation of getting things done and of being concerned that the organisation should match up to the demands made on it.
	There was some criticism of the National Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, suggested that perhaps the movement of staff away from London was not meeting with total support within the organisation. By the same token, it is also argued—it was strongly pressed by a number of noble Lords on both sides—that the National Trust should not be so London-centred. There should be greater devolution. Perhaps the issue with regard to location of staff is symbolic of some of the difficulties which occur when change is necessary. That issue is envisaged by many major organisation of that kind.
	The National Trust is fulfilling not only its long-cherished obligations with regard to property and land; it is also playing a full and important part in contemporary problems. For example, the trust is deeply involved in national debates on the future of farming. It is playing a leading role in the Government's Rural Task Force which is guiding strategies to encourage rural recovery post foot and mouth. Many rural businesses and crafts are accommodated in trust properties.
	By developing links between trust properties and rural and urban schools, colleges and communities, it is promoting life-long learning and education. That is an important dimension. It is an interest which I know the noble Lord, Lord Patten, as a former Secretary of State for Education, has, and which he shares with me, in terms of the important role that the National Trust can play in life-long learning in these terms. It also aims to deepen people's understanding and broaden the appeal of the landscape and historic events. All noble Lords who contributed to the debate today recognise the ability of that work.
	The trust is undertaking an organisational review. I was asked for assurances on the extent of it. The review is to enable the trust to protect and manage its properties better and to play a full part in the wider conservation and environmental arena. The review will also cover the corporate governance of the trust, including the workings of its council, the central and regional committees and the relationship with its membership, centres, associations and volunteers. There are clearly a number of options available to the trust for implementing changes recommended as a result of these reviews, including perhaps a review of the legislation. I hasten to add there that this would be a private Bill and not a government one if change were to be contemplated and effected. Until the reviews are completed it is not possible, or particularly helpful perhaps, to speculate on the need for revision of the legislation, particularly as there is every sign that, at present, the trust is finding it possible to modernise within the framework of the existing legislation.
	The trust has launched many initiatives and projects to demonstrate how heritage can be made more relevant to communities and how it can play a central role in delivering rural and urban regeneration. That is further helped by the amendment to the boundaries of the trust's administrative regions, and the reduction in the number of regions from 15 to 11 to achieve broad consistency with the boundaries of other organisations. It includes the Government's regional development agencies, with which the trust needs to co-operate and to work. The trust believes that this structure, under three "territory" directors, each responsible for approximately one-third of the regions, will provide a better way of providing national consistency while recognising particular local and regional needs and will be better than a "federal" system of autonomous regions, such as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, I think has in mind.
	In concluding his contribution, the noble Lord said that he wished the trust well and hoped that it would tackle its problems and challenges vigorously. Those are sentiments that I endorse. It is not for me from this Despatch Box to comment upon the particular criticisms which have been made by noble Lords, some of whom are members of the National Trust. It is for that body to address itself to those challenges, questions and problems. What has been common throughout the debate is the recognition that challenges have been laid down. The National Trust is certainly at the present time involved in responding to those challenges. They will be pursued with vigour. That is obvious from the nature of the debate tonight.
	It may be perhaps that I detect an undercurrent which was reflected by the noble Lord, Lord King—the undercurrent of the particular problem with regard to hunting. The noble Lord will recognise that it is not for me to comment on whether the National Trust has handled that issue in the best possible way. That is its business and that of its membership. Certainly, the matter of hunting is likely to remain an issue of some salience in the countryside. It is fairly obvious that, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu indicated, some of its actions in the past in relation to hunting have not won total approval among its membership—my noble friend is herself a distinguished member—and the trust needs to look at the way in which it handles these issues.
	But, as was fairly reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, hunting is a mighty challenging issue. It is one of the greatest controversy. Therefore, the National Trust, with its enormous landholding, is bound to be involved in that debate and facing difficulties which are not unknown to your Lordships.
	The debate has served a useful purpose in airing some anxieties about the way in which the trust has carried out its business. At the same time it has paid great tribute to the enormous contribution which the trust makes to our national life and to its success. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, suggested, we wish it well and hope that it will respond vigorously and promptly.

House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.